When is the same image not the same image

[bigblueben]

Just curious.  When is the same image, not the same image?  If the image in question is a distorted version, cropped/flipped/color distortion, is it the same image?  A what point are they different.  If it is a generic picture of grass or a hamburger, do they own a copyright on every hamburger picture that looks close to it? 

[SoylentGreen]

I think that this is an excellent question.
The case of Diodato vs Spade might interest you.

http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20050927_0001342.SNY.htm/qx

Although the photographs were similar, the concept was considered generic enough that Diodato last the case.
Furthermore, the defendant Spade could show several other examples of such a photo being used for commercial purposes.

"Rather, both photos illustrate the freedom photographers have under the copyright laws to independently create their own conception and expression of a particular subject matter."

Of course, that doesn't mean that one party cannot take another to court over something like this.
It's just hard to win when the subject matter is so generic.

Here's another interesting discussion about a photographer who sued Getty Images.

http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00137

S.G.

[Oscar Michelen]

Issues around intellectual property are not easily addressed in a forum like this. Owning the copyright to a "work" includes owning the right to make a derivative of the work, so you may not be able to "distort" or re-shape an work of art in to "something new."  But certainly two photogs can take a picture of the same thing and both have their own right to the image.  Copyright protects originality and creativity, so if you take  picture of a penny, there is nothing creative about it and I can take another picture of another penny and if if it is identical, it is not protectable.