On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:59 AM, Brian Walters wrote: > Quoting Paul Ewins <[email protected]>: > >> Inspired is the wrong word here, copied is correct. Company A decides not to >> pay for an image from Company B, but instead gets another photographer to >> make something that looks similar. They have intentionally copied the >> concept. There's a bigger version playing out at the moment with David La >> Chapelle suing the creators of a video clip for Rhianna for recreating >> elements from one of his photos. You can be as inspired as you like and >> generally not run into trouble, but if what you do is being used as a >> substitute for the original then you will be at risk of this sort of >> law-suit. >> > > > > Point taken, but I think the second image is sufficiently different from the > first to have a degree of originality. > > But I did say my knowledge of copyright law is basic. > > > :-)> > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ >
I looked at a few of the comments on the site where the note was posted. I particularly liked this one: "The judge should instead have fined BOTH photographers for poor taste and boring us with their photographs." stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
