Copyright Infringement?

..........

[dakwegmo]

I think if you wanted to sue you could easily find an attorney to represent you and you have a pretty good chance of winning the suit. That said, I've seen photos that looked even more alike than these two that courts have ruled didn't constitute infringement.

[ArmySoldier777]

I agree with dakwegmo. Yeah there could be a case here, but anything after that is up to the courts. That being said, it also comes down to a lot about what you think too. If you think they copied your work to make a profit for themselves, then do what you need to do to set things right. For me as a hobbyist not making money off of my photos, I'd feel more flattered than anything that they run with my idea the way they did. I'd probably contact them about it either way to get a feel behind why they went with that setup. There's the possibility that they've never even seen your photo and they thought that what they had was an original idea. Me, personally, I'd feel shitty for suing someone that made an honest mistake.

[graciousness]

Thanks to the date stamps, it proves that yours is earlier by a few months.

If you do pursue claiming copyright on it, there is no doubt yours is the more 'original' idea and that hers is a copy. Even the stacking of those cookies - couldn't she have stacked them differently, at least? The only thing different is that she used chocolate chunks.

The thing is, however, whilst your idea was re-created, it doesn't mean that it's subject to copyright. You aren't questioning the ownership of the photos, but rather contesting ownership of the style and idea behind the image.

Put it this way, if someone reproduces the Mona Lisa and sells the copies, their ass is fried. However, if someone reproduces the Mona Lisa's style using a different person altogether, that's a different story.

Keep in mind that ideas or style cannot be trademarked or copyrighted.

On the counter-argument, because that other person replicated 95% of your image and is now selling replica, that is now taking the potentials of the sales of your original image, given that it's the idea that gives that photo its artistic merit. Now that is a case for copyright infringement.

Those are all the points I can think of regarding this. Not a lawyer or a copyright expert, but thought I'd throw in a cent with how I understand it.

Basically, how I've answered your question is with a yes and no.

Copyright is so subjective to courts and interpretation of the laws so the answer depends on how the lawyer presents the case and how a judge will see it.

[Bruce A]

The images are much too close for it to be a coincidence. It's definitely a copy of your idea. I'd contact them and demand they remove it from sale - see what happens. Taking them to court could prove fruitless, expensive and if not, would it be worth the hassle?

[doctorjames]

Whether they 'copied' your work or not, I think you would have a hard time with any legal action.

1) you would need to demonstrate that they have copied your shot. However there are significant differences. The background, the crop, the cookies.

2)you would need to demonstrate that you took the shot first.

Just because you shot it first doesnt mean that they owe you im afraid IMHO, look at all the things that have been photographed thousands of times, all looking very similar. It does however look like they have 'mirrored' your setup very closely. Where did you get the original idea from? was it yours?

[Rentham]

Did you ever register the copyright?

[Biomech]

I agree with Bruce, send them a notice asking for it to be taken down. See what happens.

I still have no idea how you separate the colours and surfaces in your splash photography :P

[Twinpanther]

My only problem with the above thoughts is you have a "How I Took It" encouraging others to duplicate that shot. It's obvious she took the time to do her own image so I guess given both those facts I don't see it as infringement. But who am I though, lol.

BTW, I do love your photo and tutorial. Very well done.

[graciousness]

Originally Posted by Rentham

Did you ever register the copyright?

Unfortunately, registering the copyright would only prove the image belongs to him at the time it was taken. There is no question that the image belongs to him and that's not what is being debated.

Copyright is automatic and doesn't need to be registered to attract claims on it.

It's the idea behind the image that has been copied that is being argued.