The Limits of Copying

[VidThreeNorth]

"Canon Italy Posts Landscape Composite Without Credit, Stolen Elements, and Taken on a Fujifilm"
by Robert K Baggs, Jan. 10, 2018 "Fstoppers"

"Canon Italy Posts Landscape Composite Without Credit, Stolen Elements, and Taken on a Fujifilm"

This picture has caused Canon a lot of embarrassment. But it brings up an interesting problem. As far as I know, you can "copy" to an extent legally, but then the problem becomes one of limits. I have no issue with the criticism that if the "original" picture was completely protected (IE, there was not indication that the photographer "allowed" re-use) then yes, even if only the sky was taken, then it was too much (almost half the picture). Reading some of the criticism gets me a bit annoyed though. One post suggests that the water was taken because there are similar current patterns. Anyone who does a lot of pictures of rivers will know that such similarities are not that unusual. But it is a very unpleasant situation.

 

[john.margetts]

The limits of copying depend on where you are. French rules are stricter than UK rules and both are stricter than USA rules. I have no idea about Italian rules.

 

[KmH]

Yep. copyright law varies from country to country though some 170 countries are signators of the Berne Convention.
This article indicates the miscreant that used someone else's image was not Canon:
Canon Italy Responds and the Locardi Landscape Saga Continues

 

[Nintendoeats]

The Italians object only because the photo is non-canon.

 

[vin88]

what are the U. S. rules? vin