Non-Copied Photo Is Ruled Copyright Infringement

An anonymous reader writes "A UK judge ruled that a photograph inspired by another photograph, but clearly different from it, infringes the original photo's copyright. The two photographs were shot in the same location, have the same subject, and use the same distinctive post-processing treatment. However, the angle and composition are different. From the article: '[The judge] said a difficult decision hinged on a "qualitative assessment of the reproduced elements." He defined Fielder's image a "photographic work," as distinct from a simply a photograph, in that "its appearance is the product of deliberate choices and also deliberate manipulations by the author," and concluded that those aspects had been copied.'"

The Judge Wears a Wig that is Copied From Others

[itsybitsy]

without their permission, toss the judge in the Thames along with his ruling.

Re:Apparently you can copyright ideas now.

[Anarchduke]

I already had that idea. I am now going to sue you for infringing on my entirely original idea of slapping the judge.

Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied"

[MattBecker82]

Linux is Unix.

However, GNU's not.

Re:Misleading to call it "non-copied"

[jdgeorge]

Oh.... So the photograph should enjoy patent protection, rather than copyright?