UK copyright threat to photographers?

If you find yourself in court over such an infringement, just find a similar image which pre-dates the claimant's alleged 'original' image and... case dismissed.

Commentary before the ruling ...

(link)

... that provides a some context.

I am dumbfounded myself by the ruling, and was reminded of a suit over an stained glass rendering of a hula dancer near a beach ...

Reece v. Island Treasures Art Gallery, Inc., 468 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Hawaii 2006)

... (I don't remember, nor could I choose the one from search results, now which commentary|analysis I read at the time).

"Commentary before the ruling ..." -- parv .

I wrought wrong; commentary was after the ruling. I had the incorrect impression possibly because I might have failed to detect the subtly expressed ruling.

Boy, this is one of the most scary ruling I have ever seen come along.

I had a case where I had made an image for a client, a diamond. The agency then used the photo for another client without my permission. The attorney's, a copyright specialist, first response was that I couldn't copyright such a subject only my photo of that subject. Because it was obviously my shot, facets and lighting were exact matches, I had a claim, but not if it had been a similar but different shot by someone else.

While I can understand that here a "stylistic" device was also employed, that is not a copyrightable act. This all seems way too dangerous a precedent, IMO, and seems to be about something other than copyright. Nothing in that shot, nor the process, is unique or copyrightable (and the juxtaposition is a common occurrence) and since the images are different, where is the violation?

Will a shot of a kid on a swing set, any shot, violate someone's copyright? What if the same building is in the background--or bush type?

John, now your response reminded me of a French ruling about using an object as the main subject ...

(link)

... involving Getty Images and Le Corbusier Foundation.

The judge emphasizes the image manipulation (gray scale except for the bus) beyond the image capture which adds a creative element. Simply taking two pictures at this location with a red bus would not have lead to this ruling.

Context is everything. In the case of your example John, you may have had a case against the agency, as you were contracted specifically to create a paid-license image. The fact that they used it for something else without extending your license means that they willingly violated copyright for the sake of not paying you. This is clearly different that stumbling across one of a million diamond photos, as the intention was to knowingly prevent you from being paid from your efforts. The fact that they did it on purpose is the part that makes it illegal - not the fact that it looks similar.

Copyright law is civil law, and is not as black-and-white as criminal law. I probably have a thousand images that look like those others took on these boards, and I can sell them legally. But what I can't do is say, "Oh look ... John sold a bunch of that photo. I think I'll make one exactly like it and try to take some of his market share." The hard part is proving my intent.

So it becomes illegal for an end user to reject your expensive photograph and the restrictive terms you wish to place on its use , then pay a cheaper, more compliant photographer to go make a close similar for them. And this is a problem for photographers??

So it becomes illegal for an end user to reject your expensive photograph and the restrictive terms you wish to place on its use , then pay a cheaper, more compliant photographer to go make a close similar for them. And this is a problem for photographers??