Copyright: SIMILAR images can violate

[Matt]

Here's an interesting case:

A new ruling in the UK finds that a similar image (like a knockoff) could be considered a violation of an original of that scene.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ne ... 11191.html

the two pics
http://www.swanturton.com/multimedia/do ... graphs.pdf


The ruling is insane for the following reasons: the first image actually contains copyrighted and trademarked objects not belonging to the artist, thus cannot be copyrighted. Second, this would put within the domain of copyright ownership, classic works of public and natural landmarks.

For example: The Ansel Adam's estate could claim copyright on over 400-frequently photographed scenes in Yosemite... or... the first person to copyright a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge owns that copyright and now no one else can.

The judge's ruling was based on the style of artistic license taken for the colors, and that the original was well-known, and the second was a clear knock off. Hopefully future lawyers will not take advantage of this ruling and apply it snuffing out less legally-privileged photographers.

[champy1013]

Matt -

This article puts a different spin on what really happened I think:
http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-c ... -same-same

[Matt]

Much better explanation. Seems fair to me.