Copyright issues
 

Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyright: Digital Photography Review

Hopefully this is not a copyright issue posting this link.

Discuss!

Tough one.

I can see the point of the finding but does it mean that no one can go into one of our National Parks and publish black and white photos of scenery without paying royalties to the Adams estate?

Not sure I agree with the finding.

And FWIW the original is a better composition with better tone anyway.

I found this to be the most compelling reason for the judgement.

"1. The infringement occurs because the photographer *set out* to produce a similar image, i.e. effectively to copy the first. In that the judgement is fair."

If it had been a similar work with a blue bus in a different part of the city I don't see a problem.

So... I can go and take 300 photos of any national landmark, then scour the web looking for them, and sue anyone in the future that takes the same photo? Ridiculous.

bs

Doesn't there have to be an intent to defraud?

Don't worry.
You and the infringing photographer will have funds automatically charged or deducted.
Wayne's life-work(ie. business) will be removed from access to the internet.

No actions need to be taken.

It's not fraud, it's theft.

What a "MONSTERous" judgement.

(oops, can you say that word anymore?)

Ansel Adam's estate could have a field day with this.

Nope, hate that fkr.