On 25/01/2012 12:17 AM, Brian Walters wrote:
Quoting Igor Roshchin <s...@komkon.org>:
If you haven't seen it in DPReview:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case
It's about a rather interesting, albeit controversial decision..
Well, my knowledge of copyright law is, at best, basic, but.....
That's nuts.
So, the second photographer was inspired by the work of the first. How
very unusual.....
Quoted from another forum:
The original wasn't "just a photo", but a photographic work
involving a number of specific manipulations in Photoshop.
The defendant had agreed to pay to use the original work, but then
decided that the plaintiff wanted too much money and refused to pay.
The plaintiff and defendant ended up in court, and the judge ruled
that the defendant had to pay.
The defendant then cobbled together something that intentionally
looked similar to the desired work, including the specific Photoshop
manipulations, from stock photos and the like.
The case in question was tried in the same court, before the same
judge, that had previously ruled that the defendant needed to pay for
the use of that image.
The "copy" wasn't a photo; it was a montage that was created with the
undeniable intent to rip off the look of the original. The situation was
exacerbated by this action having been taken to circumvent the original
ruling by this judge, and that obviously didn't endear the defendant to
the judge.
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
