The original post stated he was asked to "re-create a shot by another
photographer for a job." To me, that says the client has a shot that
works but does not want to pay an appropriate fee to the creator, and
therefore provides the image to photographer #2 and asks him to
duplicate it, which is clearly a violation of copyright. If
photographer #2 is asked to use a similar technique, or put his own
spin on a similar subject matter, that MAY be a different issue, but
that was only clear after several posts.
Out of safety and respect for others, if a client asks me to look at
an image as a reference, I usually decline to look, and approach the
creation of the image in my own way.
Jeff
On Sep 9, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Mark Blackwell wrote:
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
