The way I understand it (and I am no lawyer, don't play one on tv and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night either) is an IDEA can not be copyrighted. If you use a particular photo as inspiration to create another, that isn't stealing. Change a little something here ect and its your work. An exact duplicate is a bit more of an issue.
Though you might have been the creator, you may very well be looking at an expensive legal process to prove you created your own work and didn't steal it from some place. Even then some gray can appear and it may very well be different from place to place as to what is considered a copy.
--- On Mon, 9/8/08, ADavidhazy <andpph@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: ADavidhazy <andpph@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Rear curtain synch question
> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, September 8, 2008, 5:15 PM
> Roy,
>
> Does copyright then imply that it is the exact same image?
> How exact is exact?
> I guess the hands and rings wedding shot is not
> copyrightable either? Hmmm ...
> food for thought. I still think that
> "appropriations" is squirrely. ;)
>
> andy
>
>
>
>
> PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >
> > Copyright doesn't apply if you doing 2nd curtain
> synch since the original
> > photography is first curtain synch. Copyright
> doesn't apply unless you
> > duplicate the scene like having the pews at the same
> angles, have the model wearing a
> > similar dress etc. Copyright is violated when the
> results look like the
> > original.
> > I don't think an act of dropping a drop of
> fluid into a liquid is
> > copyrightable because the outcome will vary. It would
> take quite a bit of talent
> > and time to make such a picture match a previous one
> in terms of splash
> > positions, sizes. getting the light from the same
> angle etc.
> > Roy
