Alan Zinn , Jan 31, 2012; 04:58 p.m.
JDM von Weinberg 
, Jan 31, 2012; 05:09 p.m.
already posted and discussed, isn't it?
Colin Carron 
, Feb 01, 2012; 04:32 a.m.
Yes, here:
http://photo.net/photography-news-forum/00ZvEF
But as I had missed the original post - thanks for posting, Alan.
If you think about other kinds of plagiarism where ,say, a novel storyline is copied but the copying author writes their own words, it seems a logical parallel. But given the number of shots taken of buses going over Westminster Bridge and the possible manipulations it seems a very grey area. (No pun intended). Prefer the original shot to the knock-off.
Alan Zinn , Feb 01, 2012; 09:50 a.m.
Darn - sorry 'bout that guys.
john robison , Feb 01, 2012; 12:36 p.m.
That judgement is beyond stupid. According to reasoning like that no one can ever take another picture of Yosemite valley and sell prints because the copyright would already be owned by the Ansel Adams trust.
John MacPherson , Feb 01, 2012; 02:33 p.m.
No its not "beyond stupid".
If you actually read the judgment you might realise that. The amount of ill-informed, emotive and inaccurate twaddle being peddled in the DPR thread is laughable. Did you read the judgment?
The photographer acknowledged to the judge that he deliberately set out to create an image that was virtually identical, but to try to do so without violating copyright by carefully making it slightly different. (In order that he might capture some of the business from his competitor.) And in this he failed. There was previous 'history' between the parties that had material bearing on the case also, and the judge found that there was intent to copy in order to financially disadvantage the other party. So we have this judgment.
Not stupid, sensible actually, and a judgment that may in fact help you if you get ripped off similarly.
john robison , Feb 01, 2012; 04:16 p.m.
Thank you John McPherson. I did indeed not check my facts of the case and stand corrected.
John MacPherson , Feb 01, 2012; 05:08 p.m.
Thats fair enough John! Like you I was initially surprised by the reported trial outcome, until I actually read what had happened. I certainly see it more as positive outcome that's taking copyright seriously in what superficially appears to be a simple case - important in these digital internet days where IP is regularly ripped off.
Steve Smith , Feb 01, 2012; 06:58 p.m.
Whilst I understand the reasoning behind the judgement, I'm not sure if intent should be considered in copyright infringement cases. Trademark, yes. Copyright, no.
Alan Zinn , Feb 01, 2012; 07:50 p.m.
I think the court was micro-managing enterprise, not protecting copyright. The opinion will only disadvantage creative people. The courts shouldn't have to play art director - a task they are obviously not suited for. We have design patents in the U.S.. A copy is just that - the same as. Those two version of - "OMG, a red bus against a monchrome House of P. background! What a concept! Brilliant!" were not alike graphically. That's like stealing "Got Milk?".
