How far does intelectual property rights stretch?

Took a few photos for a fashion/uni project early 2005, one of the models being a then young and just starting out type, appearing on some of her first main shoots. So given a local bar to shoot in I created these...

http://www.flickr.com …in/set-72157600208008749/

and

http://www.flickr.com …in/set-72157600208008749/


I came across her own Flickr account and found these shots.

http://www.flickr.com …s/nicola-white/456494707/

and

http://www.flickr.com …456494703/in/ph​otostream/


Obviously the same girl, same location and after my original shoot. I know for a fact that in the first of her shots, the photographer stood in exactly the same spot too. Now I'm not intending on suing her or anything like that, but I'd like to rattle her cage for being a cheeky enough ***** to rip off my ideas blatanly and pass them off as her own. And it's not the first time she's taken liberties with my work either.

So I ask your opinions if I have a leg to stand on, or do I just have to leave a blunt comment under the images?

You can't copyright a location. That's the only similarity. If you get on her case about choosing the location 2x, you'll just look like an uptight ass and she'll make sure everyone knows about it.

If the model was wearing the same dress, and laying in the same position, and lit the same way, shot with the same focal length and exposure, from the same position, then yes you might have a reason to be upset.

However the only similarity there is use of the same location and bright light source from what I assume is a window.

If she looked at your photograph and then attempted to recreate it, exactly, it would be copyright infringement. Standing in the same place as you and using the same angles isn't criminal; it's a compliment.

I'm sure you "ripped off" a pose and the idea from someone else too.

If I were the model and was approached about this by you, I'd think you're nuts.

They don't stretch as far as some people would like.

As others have said, using the same location is no big deal. I often use the same locations as other photographers, but I bring my own style and interpretation to the shoot - much like she did. You really don't have a bone to pick.

Mark

I can understand you being a bit Pissed off, but try to look at it as a compliment. She thought your idea was so great she wanted to do it again.
And personally I might add she did a great job. Her photos are great.
It would have been curteous of her to mention your name somewhere in the credit or comments.

bieber wrote in post #3244337
If she looked at your photograph and then attempted to recreate it, exactly, it would be copyright infringement.

No, it would only be copyright infringement if she took HIS actual photo and reproduced it. Copying a concept - an idea - is not infringement.

akiwi wrote in post #3245359
It would have been curteous of her to mention your name somewhere in the credit or comments.

he doesnt own the property

i dunno those shots looked pretty different to me - i see the location is the same but that's about it really, imo

Just to clarify, seeing as some people here seem to be quite content to use this as an opportunity to sling mud, I was asking mainly to garner opinion. I was of the opinion that I didn't have a leg to stand on, but was clutching at straws as I was and am a bit miffed. I don't think the fact that she 'acquired' photos from my portfolios and sites in the past and used them without request or credit helped either.

And there's more to the definition of copyright infringement than just if she stole my exact image with ref to Jerry above. And for reference, the original shot was the first time the location had ever been used for photography according to their manager, so the concept wasn't stolen by me in the first place. I generally try never to replicate or plagiarise, only to take in and allow it to affect my own ideas.

manipula wrote in post #3249932
And for reference, the original shot was the first time the location had ever been used for photography according to their manager, so the concept wasn't stolen by me in the first place.

Using a location first still doesn't mean you can copyright it.

manipula wrote in post #3249932
I generally try never to replicate or plagiarise, only to take in and allow it to affect my own ideas.

That's what you call implementing inspiration. That's what was done based on your images. Your images were still not stolen.

And I see no mud slinging. I see facts that you didn't want to hear and opinions of how you might be perceived if you were to rustle some leaves despite having no valid basis for it, other than your own gut feelings.

manipula wrote in post #3249932
Just to clarify, seeing as some people here seem to be quite content to use this as an opportunity to sling mud,

I don't see any mud slinging here. You solicited opinions and, imo, that is what you got.

So someone used a pose similar to yours and the same location. I don't see making this a BFD. Life goes on.

manipula wrote in post #3243207
And it's not the first time she's taken liberties with my work either.

I'm not sure I understand - are you saying that she'd previously "taken liberties" with your work, but you chose to keep working with her anyway? Or that you've discovered - subsequent to the 2005 shoot - that she's "ripped off" other locations and/or ideas of yours?

In any case, I think you're over-reacting to her using "your" location, but since it obviously does bother you, about all you can do is choose not to work with her in the future. Don't seek to rattle her cage - you'll wind up looking ridiculous, and her reputation won't be tarnished in any way. And don't dwell on this - because choosing to subject yourself to unnecessary aggrevation isn't going to benefit you in any way. Just shrug your shoulders, and get over it. Really.

I wonder sometimes if typing on the internet equates to speaking English. The last couple of replies really have taken what I wrote wrongly.

I was a bit miffed. I asked your opinion. You gave it. End of. I'm sat here grinning, not trying to scheme ways of bumping her off in an internet murder scheme. I suspected that I wouldn't have any claim over anything to do with the photos but asked others' opinions just in case, as it would have made me feel better to have mentioned something: human nature and all that.

And regarding her taking liberties with my stuff. These shots, and others taken for the same project (and a few taken a few months later) were found being used on her promotional material without credit or permission. I'd have given it if she'd have asked. But she didn't. I haven't worked with her since, and she's given me the opinion that although friendly and mild in person, will stop at nothing to get herself further up the ladder regardless of cost. And it's that attitude that fuelled me being a bit agrieved by seeing her using the ideas from my shots in her more recent work.

I never claimed to have copyrighted the location, and I never stated she stole my images, I was just asking if the similarities between them came close to the grey areas around intelectual property rights, as I'm not that hot on that side of law. End result, as I suspected, is no. I was only asking...