Story on Infringment

I came across this recent story based in the UK, where a judge ruled in favor of copyright infringment based on the fact that a picture a photographer took was "similar" to one another photographer took.

I can't help but think of picture of such places as Arches NP that seems like there are thousands upon thousands of very similar pictures of. If you would ever want to monitize such things, this could make a difference on who gets to and who doesn't.

Amature Photographer

There is much info out there on copyrights, I grabbed this which I have refered to myself as just some info to pass along since I raised this initial question.
Ken Kaminesky Blog, Photograpy, Copyright and the Law

Interesting article, Brad. As an attorney myself and an adjunct business law professor at the local university, I often tell my students that what you see in print (newspaper, website and textbook alike) never gives the full story in a lawsuit. There is always a lot of "record" that is not printed or published, and some "off the record" stuff that will often put the "back story" in its true perspective. Here, it looks like it is not just the fact that someone went out and photographed a red bus with this familiar backdrop. It is more that they did and then copied the process for an identical "look and feel." And the the story suggests that they did so "knowingly," based on the comments about the opportunity to work together.

I certainly hope that my photographs of iconic places that, while they are my own composition, are often very similar to others, are not going to someday be deemed "infringement."

I'm not a lawyer but my take is that the judgement is largely based on the fact that there was a deliberate attempt to make an image as similar as possible to one that was already well known. It isn't just the subject matter that was iconic in the sense that say Delicate Arch or Yosemite Falls are iconic, rather the image itself was a well known image. There's a lot going on here. Iconic subject matter, a particular treatment (red buss in B&W background), the tea company knowing of the original and deliberately attempting to make as similar an image as possible without crossing the copyright line after seeing the original photograph. If I were the judge I would have found it significant that apparently the Tea Company had been offered and declined a licensing agreement. The case is still in litigation and I suspect that there is enough grey area (no pun intended) that this could be overturned by a higher court. I thought it interesting that original was itself "inspired" by the movie Schindler's List which apparently used the same techniques of color against B&W according to the judgment.

In any case I see it as an excellent argument against amateurs running off to iconic locations in hopes of making photographs liek ones they've seen in hopes of selling their mimicry. Aside from reducing your work to the level of being a copycat instead of a creative artist you risk being sued by the creative people that you mimic.

I agree with the others. Simply shooting an iconic scene or something that's been photographed before isn't going to be copyright infringement. It's the fact that they specifically altered the image to match that shot with a similar background and knew that the image which they were copying was used for commercial purposes. In my opinion, it's much ado about nothing.

"It's the fact that they specifically altered the image to match that shot with a similar background and knew that the image which they were copying was used for commercial purposes."

That's my take on it too.

Unlike Andy, I'm not an attorney, like Andy I'm a professor, but in this case of photography. Copyright and patent infringements are always heard in federal court, and I have been an "expert witness" in a couple of these cases and have read quite a bit of case law having to do with this subject. I agree with Jim Bullard, in cases as above the court, nearly always rules because a difinite attempt has been made to duplicate an existing piece if art which the court finds to be infringement even though with a different camera. I know a couple of photographers who have duplicated some of Ansel's photos so precisely that a well informed photographer can't tell the difference. They show the work but usually it isn't published unless the publisher is unsophisticated enough to not know the differece.

Lynn