From: Brian Walters
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.
This is the second infringement lawsuit brought by the same plaintiff
against the same defendant regarding the same original image.
The defendants previously entered into a license agreement to reproduce
the original photo that ended up as a copyright infringement case
between the parties due to a dispute regarding the amount of royalties
due to the photographer.
The court found for the plaintiff in that first case.
The defendant then had a graphic design firm create a new image using
the major design elements from the original image specifically to avoid
paying the royalties due to the photographer from that first
infringement case.
The second image *IS* a copy of the first image. Not an exact copy, but
a copy none-the-less.
--
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.
