On 1/25/2012 12:36 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
As with most news stories this one leaves out a lot of the (rather
important) details. My son-in-law (who does a lot of stock photography
with Getty, etc.) follows this stuff closely. His brief take...
- - -
I think the judge was a bit overzealous (I mean this was a pretty
standard tourist destination and no doubt there are probably 10,000
other images similar to these out there), but it's a myth that a photo
has to be an exact copy to be an infringement. Context matters a lot,
too -- and in this context, from what I read of the ruling, it sounds
like the company originally just out and out stole the photographer's
photograph, the photographer told them to knock it off, they knocked
it off, and THEN they sent one of their own employees out to go and
try to reproduce the photograph on location and in Photoshop.
- - -
Darren Addy
Kearney, Nebraska
Worse things get done in Hollywood. Not a defense. But this is clearly
not a copyright issue. It's some other type of intellectual property
issue.
--
Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a
lengthily search.
--
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.
