Post by The Wirefox on Jan 21, 2012 12:09:08 GMT
This is a bit long winded but worth a read
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2012/1.html
The upshot seems to be that an image of a scene has been produced by a photographer and manipulated PP to that of a very similar shot done by another photographer. There are commercial implications (product) but the judge seems to have dismissed this as not relevant to the case.
The judgement was in favour of the claimant...in other words producing a photograph of a similar scene with similar PP is breach of copyright!
I dispair at times, I really do
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2012/1.html
The upshot seems to be that an image of a scene has been produced by a photographer and manipulated PP to that of a very similar shot done by another photographer. There are commercial implications (product) but the judge seems to have dismissed this as not relevant to the case.
The judgement was in favour of the claimant...in other words producing a photograph of a similar scene with similar PP is breach of copyright!
I dispair at times, I really do
