Re-creating your favorite photo? Copyright infringement (in the UK at least)!

[adversus]

Saw this today.

Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyright: Digital Photography Review

In case you don't want to read the article, a Judge in the UK deemed that a "similar" image taken and processed in a "similar" manner of the same location/subject constituted copyright infringement of a previously taken photograph.

My mind cannot even comprehend the level of stupid.

 

[o hey tyler]

Holy ****.

The images aren't even close to being the same.

This is my brain after reading this:

 

[Josh66]

?

The only thing similar between them is that they both have a selectively colored bus...

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Oh god! The photos aren't even that similar. And one is clearly a much better image than the other. To even make the comparison, the good photographer must not think very highly of his work. LOL

But doesn't this set a precedent that only one photographer can claim copyright against every image of, let's say, the famous "Landscape Arch"?

 

[adversus]

That's what I was thinking, Bitter.

Ansel Adam's estate must be lining up the lawyers.

 

[480sparky]

Ruh-roh, Shaggy! I'm in deep doo-doo then.

However, the top photo is not marked "Net Wt. 50 g 1.7 oz."

 

[cgipson1]

Pretty whacked! Judge must be a part time critic too!

( I will have to go in and change all my EXIF data to say shot taken in 1860 or something... then I will own everything! After all, I took it first.. your honor.. see.. look at the date!)

 

[tirediron]

Actually, if you read the full story and the judgement, there's more too it than just the image. The two had previous history of infringement, and it appears that the image over which the suit was filed was a deliberate attempt to use the plaintiff's idea. I'm not entirely sure that I am comfortable with the decision, but having read further into it, I can completely understand it.

 

[ph0enix]

This is my brain after reading this:

You mean full of protein?

 

[480sparky]

Pretty whacked! Judge must be a part time critic too!

( I will have to go in and change all my EXIF data to say shot taken in 1860 or something... then I will own everything! After all, I took it first.. your honor.. see.. look at the date!)

I'm thinking my shot of the Grand Canyon should preclude all others as well.

 

[EIngerson]

Wow. A picture taken of a public place? Ridiculous.

 

[480sparky]

What I find interesting is the plaintiff (the one claiming infringement) says he got the idea from the movie "Schindler's List".

 

[Buckster]

What I find interesting is the plaintiff (the one claiming infringement) says he got the idea from the movie "Schindler's List".

Makes sense. When I saw the photo, the first thought that came to mind was, "I wonder if that bus will be murdered by Nazis?"