[cico71]

Well, we may discuss about the "closely as possible without infringing". To me composition seems a lot different (with the second one being much worse, but I must say I'm also not impressed by the original one).

Red bus in black&white with overcast sky?

Give me a break... what are the chances to shoot with an overcast sky in London?

Besides, isolating a (mostly) single color object in a B&W photo is so popular (and abused) that you can even have it in new point&shoot cameras.

Go, figure: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex5n/page10.asp search for "Partial Color (R)" and click on the link.

Seems quite obvious that if you find yourself in that photo spot, and a red bus passes by, you immediately think to make it pop out with such a post processing trick.

I also don't buy the "clearly produced with the intent to evoke the same expression" argument. For example: how many pictures of the Matterhorn (with or without the lake in the composition) are taken and evoking the same expression?

This is simply a very bad judgement.

(Just to be clear: I see your point and my tone is not directed at you)

[forrestthewoods]

You can't claim it's a very bad judgement because you didn't read it. I know you didn't read it because you said "overcast sky". Had you read the judgement it repeatedly discusses the blank/white sky. It's an important element of the final judgement. The sky may very well have been vibrant blue in the original, unedited photograph. It is not an overcast sky and had you read the judgement you'd know this.

You're welcome to agree or disagree with the judgement, I really don't care. All I ask of people is that they actually read the damned thing before forming an opinion on it.

[cico71]

Ok, bad wording, what I meant is that this is a typical photo taken during an overcast day where you don't expose for the sky: low contrast (you can see it from the buildings and flat shadows in the original photo) and blown up sky.

So may guess is that the original one was taken on an overcast day but the sky was not blown up enough to make the buildings pop up more so it was removed in post processing. Nothing much creative or new here.

The photos are too small to make a good evaluation, but to me it seems that the second photo was not even taken on a overcast day (shadows on the building are more harsh).

These are just speculations and it may as well be that also the first photo was taken on a sunny day and the photgrapher simply lowered the contrast in post processing (the judgement describes only the manipilations "In summary").

Anyway, this doesn't change a single thing in my opinion. I would go as far as to say that white sky is not only a common technique, but it's also iconic in this case (i.e. it was notthat much of a creative idea to express something unique).

The judgement is full of notes taken about the several differences between the photos, among which composition itself is the most prominent, yet the sky becomes so important??

Really, I believe the whole thing is much simpler that all what is written in the judgement: a) the two parties involved already had problems in the past (see point 2) and b) the judge was biased by the fact that the second photo was done in a similar way on purpose (Point 10 "He clearly knew about the claimant's work when the second image was produced because the whole point of the exercise was to produce a non-infringing image given the complaint about the first image the defendants had used")

[amenonsen]

«Well, we may discuss about the "closely as possible without infringing".»

Did you read the judgement yet? There's no point discussing anything without knowing the facts of the case.

«Seems quite obvious that if find yourself in that photo spot, and a red bus passes by, you immediately think to make it pop out with such a post processing trick.»

If that's all it had been, the judgement makes it clear that the result would not have been infringing.

[Natsu]

> If that's all it had been, the judgement makes it clear that the result would not have been infringing.

The judge appears to follow a rather interesting line of reasoning about this. The defendants identified a whole bunch of very similar works. The plaintiff said he'd never seen them and the judge took him at his word. You can see this starting near item #49.

So his work was considered original and theirs wasn't.

[cico71]

"Did you read the judgement yet? There's no point discussing anything without knowing the facts of the case."

I know it's nice and quick to dismiss arguments by presuming someone didn't read something, but yes, I read the article and I think the two photos are different enough. Mo matter what the judge wrote.

If anything, I'd say that the second photo (although aesthetically worse IMO) captures better the iconic landmarks by focusing just on the Parliament, the Big Ben and the Bus.

Yes, is missing, the bridge, but look at how busy is the first photo with the lampost and the bus covering the parliament and the people on the bridge. It also captures a wider area, loosing focus on the main icons.

The first is, overall, a better photo, but if I had to choose one to put on kitsch mugs, I find the second one more iconic (maybe cropping more on the right).

"If that's all it had been, the judgement makes it clear that the result would not have been infringing."

That was an extremization. Still, if I think I can do a better job at capturing a similar photo, I'm now barred from doing it and use the photo commercially unless I demonstrate that I did it either by canche, or that I didn't know about previous work (or more generally that my intent was not to take a photo not to pay the licence to someone else).

There are plenty of photo spots around the world were everyone go to make similar photos and plenty of well-known techniques that can be applied in post-processing. Yet, there are very few really original (creative) photos taken in such places.

[pbhjpbhj]

The key question is "was it copied from the other work". Of course these issues you raise can be important in proving the copying.