I'm not surprised by this. Copyight is about the *interpretation *of an idea. If Marcel Duchamp claims copyright on putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa then I can see that I am stealing his idea by putting a moustache on another similar famous painting by da Vinci.
In this case the idea is the red bus against a black and white image. Actually I think the first one is "obvious" having seen Schindlers list, but I can see that others may not consider it "obvious" (You are allowed to infringe another person's copyright if their idea is *obvious* - I believe). This is not about the images being similar its about stealing? the red bus v. black and white parliament image background idea. There was a similar case with the classic guinness ad where someone had already shot a man dancing around a pint of beer. Then Guinness created their own version and refused to credit/pay the man with the original idea (if I remember right) On 1 February 2012 14:45, Harry Burt <[email protected]> wrote: > That might actually be licensed, though. > > -- > Harry > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Richard Farmbrough < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I wonder if http://www.popartuk.com/**photography/london/red-bus-on-** >> westminster-bridge-ph0408-**poster.asp<http://www.popartuk.com/photography/london/red-bus-on-westminster-bridge-ph0408-poster.asp>would >> have been considered enough to make the idea non-novel. >> >> >> On 25/01/2012 22:23, geni wrote: >> >>> On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus >>> Manske<magnusmanske@**googlemail.com<[email protected]>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ...photos that somehow look similar: >>>> >>>> http://www.**amateurphotographer.co.uk/**news/photographers_face_** >>>> copyright_threat_after_shock_**ruling__news_311191.html<http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html> >>>> >>>> The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but >>>> should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images? >>>> >>>> >>>> Magnus >>>> >>> Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in theory if you see >>> a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to it to be >>> considered a derivative work that that is a copyright violation. >>> However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove and people >>> don't care enough to try. >>> >>> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l> >> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > > -- Roger Bamkin Chair WMUK <http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board> 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
