Hello all. I'm finally back from my month long vacation/hibernation period and very excited to be here.
Just to start things, here is a piece I came upon while surfing the interwebz which I found to be very interesting:
The gist of it is that a judge in the UK found that making images that are similarly composed to a previous work would in fact amount to copyright infringement.
The images in question are one of those images where the background is black and white and the main subject is highlighted with its original color. In both images, the background basically consists of the Houses of Parliament, Big Ben and Westminster Bridge while the main subject is one of those iconic red two-decker London buses. The angle of the the two shots is similar too but only in the sense that both were shot from the same general direction. This is about as similar the two images get. The "distance" between the viewer and the subject is clearly different (i.e., position of the photographer taking the photo) as well as the field of view and other things. This is not to mention the two approaches used to produce the images are completely different. One is a single shot manipulated in photoshop while the other (the "infringing" one) is a composite of three black and white images, that the defendant personally took, making up the background plus an additional color image of the bus that was sourced from a stock photo agency (this you can find in the judgement copy which is linked to from the article).
I will hold off on my opinion for now but I would like to hear what others think of this.