Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyright

While there are minor similarities within the two photographs, I would not call the compositions the same. I don't see a copyright infringement here. Is the judge on crack?

In other words is it now a copyright infringement to take a photograph of this street? After all, some photographer took one then had it copy-written.

I totally disagree with the concept that someone can copyright a composition "idea."

Hello Benno in Denmark

That is just going to be a mess, totally disagree with the judge. Think of a personal photo versus a photo of the same person taken by another.

The copyright should only apply to that specific photo and the use of by others different from the owner. <--- The period to the left is the most important part :o)

Lebowsky in Florida

While I can see the conceptual similarity between the two images, the most I would say is that one may have been inspired by the other. I can't see this as a copyright infringement. I can't imagine trying to enforce copyright law based on this type of ruling. It is far too ambiguous.

This is an idiotic ruling. Does this mean every photograph has to be of something completely different? I guess all landmarks will be out of bounds then, they've been photographed every wa from every angle thousands of times. How about movies, music, paintings? Styles are imitated, and that's how people learn.

Without reading the entire ruling, it appears the judge ruled in this way because the photographer, with the "original" image in mind, specifically set out to shoot this scene to slap on tea packaging and sell more tea. However, it sets a dangerous precedent, IMO. This is a common London scene and technique: red bus and black and white Big Ben/Parliament. Fielder surely can't be credited with the scene or technique. I'd compare it to this photograph, which pretty much every photographer in the city of Minneapolis (including tourists) has taken - same location, same time lapse, same freaking hole in the bridge enclosure. If only one person is allowed to shoot that scene, that prevents me from taking that shot and stifles my creativity. Besides, what makes Fielder's composition unique is the staircase and bridge in the foreground, which obviously was not copied.

I'm inspired by the images of others all the time, while I don't necessarily "copy" the composition, there was one time where I felt like I copied too much of the composition and that made me feel sort of bad, especially when someone mistakenly pointed it out the "original" as mine:

halo deco vs Wells Fargo Tower

.. but again, this is a distinct building downtown and has been shot many a photographer.

I'm wondering if anyone even bothered to read the article. The issue is not the photography itself, it is the postprocessing of the photo that is the copyright issue - the red bus, the monochrome cityscape, the white sky. The judge also took in consideration that Houghton was aware of Fielder's work; in other words, Houghton did not just happen to stumble across the same idea on his own.

Nowhere is one given the impression that copyright is being extended to the scene being shot. Go ahead, take all the pictures of famous buildings that you want - it won't be a copyright infringement.