Is it Copyright infringement if...

...some one doesn't use your photo but shoots an exact copy?

I'm guessing it's not, but it's come up twice now so thought I should educate myself.

One of my most popular photos has been copied by a local photographer using the exact same model. It's also been copied by another photographer who is out of state. Again with the same model.

I read something related just a couple of weeks ago. The photographer Rodney Smith has a famous photo of a man standing on a ladder looking over a hedge. He got a call that the CEO of a Korean company was flying into the next day to meet with him. His advertising agency got the same call. He met with the CEO who said that one of his employees had made a similar image and he had flown to NY to apologize and offer to pay for the mistake. He asked Rodney Smith how much he should pay and and wrote a check on the spot, then got back on his private plane and flew home.

(I just found Rodney's blog post about the incident http://rodneysmith.com​/blog/?p=2802)

I would think if this were copyright infringement then there would be thousands of Photographers on court dockets for copying the Marilyn Monroe "dress blowing up in air" image.

Not entirely sure but I would say its not because people can argue that is was taken at a different setting on the camera, different time of day etc..... Now with Rodney Smith's photo, I think because the shot was intended for commercial use, then nobody can use it without permission. So it cant be replicated.

It would probably be a different story if you specifically noted in a contract with the model you shot that he/she is not allowed to shoot at this location with this pose with any other photographer.

This is really interesting. It draws a lot of parallels with Software IP rights I think. I think the solution would be similar to IP rights if there were a patent system for photos.

It's a thin line that is walked on intellectual property theft. It really depends on the cost-to-benefit ratio of filing a lawsuit to keep them from using your idea. Sometimes a cease and desist letter may do the trick, but it's going to cost you if they don't comply and you want compensation. If it's a unique enough image you think has the potential to be sold and resold by all means, pursue legal action. This is all assuming that the imitation can be proven as intentional and that they are trying to usurp pending profits to be gained from your original image. ie if someone tries to rip off an identical old-spice commercial and claim the idea as their own.

I know that there are ways to copyright your images with the government so that you have a legal course of action should this situation arise in the future. I believe you can mail in a cd full of images to the copyright/patent office for a fee and they will basically put those files into the database. I mean it really has to be a unique idea/image for you to have some type of case.

They always say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Maybe it would be best to write the other photographer, express your concern and ask that he credit/link to your original image? I really don't think you have a foothold unless you copyrighted it beforehand or stand to make some real money from the shot.

This is a good link to check out even though it might not be 100% relevant http://www.wipo.int …uments/ip_photo​graphy.htm

JackFlash19 wrote in post #13374366
I know that there are ways to copyright your images with the government so that you have a legal course of action should this situation arise in the future. I believe you can mail in a cd full of images to the copyright/patent office for a fee and they will basically put those files into the database. I mean it really has to be a unique idea/image for you to have some type of case.

All of my images have been copyrighted with the government. It's a simple process and I do it every quarter.

This is my best selling image and I make a fair amount of money off of it. He does not appear to be selling it, just using it in his portfolio, so it's currently not taking away sales. I was mainly asking because what if does start selling it. Do I have any legal standing? Copyright law is pretty clear if he was using my actual image, but I don't understand it enough to know if a replica is covered.

cbknight wrote in post #13374175
I would think if this were copyright infringement then there would be thousands of Photographers on court dockets for copying the Marilyn Monroe "dress blowing up in air" image.

That is a unique case, but actually the corporate owners of that particular image do hunt down and sue photographers who copy it when those copies get bright on their radar.

Moose408 wrote in post #13374055
...some one doesn't use your photo but shoots an exact copy?

I'm guessing it's not, but it's come up twice now so thought I should educate myself.

One of my most popular photos has been copied by a local photographer using the exact same model. It's also been copied by another photographer who is out of state. Again with the same model.

I read something related just a couple of weeks ago. The photographer Rodney Smith has a famous photo of a man standing on a ladder looking over a hedge. He got a call that the CEO of a Korean company was flying into the next day to meet with him. His advertising agency got the same call. He met with the CEO who said that one of his employees had made a similar image and he had flown to NY to apologize and offer to pay for the mistake. He asked Rodney Smith how much he should pay and and wrote a check on the spot, then got back on his private plane and flew home.

(I just found Rodney's blog post about the incident http://rodneysmith.com​/blog/?p=2802)

The courts use the "reasonable man" standard.

A reasonable man looks at the two images and decides whether it's clear that Photographer A was deliberately copying the work of Photographer B.

A number of factors come into that conclusion, including situational factors: Fifty papparazzi all shooting a starlet as she exits her car at the entrance of the Oscars--of course there are going to be many nearly identical pictures, and the "reasonable man" will realize it.

My understanding is you can't copyright ideas. If you take a shot of a city (or a model, as the case may be) and I figure out exactly where/when/how you took it and go do the same thing myself ... well, that's grossly uncreative but it's not illegal.

It's the particular expression of an idea that is copyrighted.

In one case, a photographer had photographed a laughing couple on a carnival merry-go-round. The woman was wearing a dark dress with large white polka dots, the man was wearing a dark suit. The image was a close-up taken with a wide-angle lens, the woman riding the hobby horse on the left of the image, the man standing beside her on the right with his arm around her. This first image was a stock photograph marketed by Getty.

A second photograph appeared in an advertisement with all the same features I described for the first. It wasn't precisely identical--the cut of the dark dress with white polka dots was different, the man's tie was wider, the design of the hobby horse was different. But it was pretty clear to the "reasonable man" that the second photographer had attempted to duplicate the original photograph, and differences were not a matter of deliberate creativity, merely the inability to duplicate more exactly.

Getty sued and won.

Interesting ... I stand corrected. Though one must wonder what the outcome would have been if it weren't Getty bringing the case. Good news for OP though...

Not sure but I don't think it is copyright infringement. Instead I think you may sue for plagiarism or "passing off".

There was the recent case where Rihanna was sued over a video which recreated the style and posed of photos taken by David Lachapelle - Linky. However none of the stories actually state exactly what he sued for. I tried following links to get to the original source but that seemed to be www.courthousenews.com and that wouldn't load for me.

kjonnnn wrote in post #13378655
I don't believe you can copyright and idea for a photograph. I think that's what you're saying.

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.

http://www.copyright.g​ov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

The OP said, "...shoots an exact copy."

That would be a copyright violation.

kjonnnn wrote in post #13379119
He said

"One of my most popular photos has been copied by a local photographer using the exact same model. It's also been copied by another photographer who is out of state. Again with the same model."

If he was copying the photography, the phrase "using the exact same model" wouldnt make sense, nor be necessary.

SO, to the OP ... which IS it. The photographer take a photograph of your photograph, or did they use the same model and retake the scene copying your STYLE?

Take a look at my post #10. If someone makes what is clearly intended to duplicate a previous photograph, that will be ruled as copyright violation.

kjonnnn wrote in post #13379119
SO, to the OP ... which IS it. The photographer take a photograph of your photograph, or did they use the same model and retake the scene copying your STYLE?

He retook the photograph with the same model, same pose, and then did the same PP work to make it look the same. So based on reading the copyright articles, it is not a copyright violation. However it sounds like it might be plagiarism.