Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > Are you all completely mad? If you want to be sued by Corbis or Getty > > images for taking a picture which looks similar to one they have > > rights for > > without the defence of "innocent error" then by all means support this. > > > In terms of U.S. law, "copyright" does not apply to ones ability to > take a picture of something _similar_ (or even somewhat identical) to > what one has rights to. The "copyright" applies to the copy of the > actual photograph, or written work, or software etc. _not_ what the > photograph is "about". Incorrect They are known as "derivative" works - where someone basically copies the "gist" of someone else's copyright work - in this case a photograph. Such derivative works are an infringement of copyright. It doesn't have to be an exact copy. Of course it's like "fair use" the decision of whether there actually is an infringement depends on the exact wording of the law, previous case law and the precise circumstance of the case. In the end a court decides where the line was stepped over and someone has infringed copyright by making a "derivative" work. An excellent example is the recent case of photographer Bill Delzell vs RJ Reynolds - $110,000 settlement for infringement from producing a derivative image http://www.pdnonline.com/photodistrictnews/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu _content_id=1000706663 doesn't show the images there - in my copy of PDN, the two images are very similar but not identical. The one is (obviously) derived from, the other though. tim a