[gd]

From Ken Rockwell's site:
"it's even illegal to go out and try to make the same picture for commercial use! For instance, in August 2003 Getty Images settled a copyright infringement case against DJ Fatboy Slim’s record label for $25,000. Getty said the cover art for the album "Halfway Between the Gutter and the Stars" was unlawfully derived (idea copied from) from an Ernst Haas photograph "Sunset Silhouette" that the record company decided not to license from Getty."

What do we think of this? Do you guys as professionals (those who are) even subscribe to the fact that you own composition beyond the photo itself?

What rights do you keep and sign over to clients when handing them prints.. do you EVER give them the electronic original?

I thought this was an interesting comment. Ken, if you read this, I am not doing this for financial gain, I am using it to promote discussion, please don't fine me.. ken... ken, what are you doi... ... .. NOOOOOOOOO......................

[smelly]

I think that's bogus. :/ Soon enough noone will be able to go outside and take a photo that hasn't already been taken and copyrighted. It's ridiculous.

[gd]

I've flip-flopped in my mind a bit on this one since I posted. I agree, I think it's a tiny bit totally ridiculous that someone can own the composition to a scene. But I also can see why a photographer would want to own an original idea for financial gain. You don't want 36 flavours of coke, you don't want 36 colour schemes on your original photo.

On the subject of copyright.. how much creedence do people want to put into how they sell and reproduce a photo for a client. Do people only sell prints to clients.. do they sell the electronic picture as well.. or if you buy the picture you buy the jpeg.... thoughts?

[StudioJ]

I can see where they are coming from with an idea. I don't see a lot of famous photos but I have seen local photos from the AIPP and APS awards and from those photos I've seen others copying the styles.

It would seem that they did get the original idea from the image they were going to licence for use but decided to create their own. From examining the images (I couldn't post links its a pain trying to paste links from Getty) the images are almost identical with a different aperture on the sun causing more points on the star (in my opinion the FBS version is better!)

Something like that is an obvious attempt to copy an image in every way, whether they should be made to pay is another matter. Has every image been done already? How many photos of been taken that are similar?