ardyer
Baron
Zhu Bajie":jcsuump0 said:Where a work is derived from another, then yes, things can get a bit less cut-and-dry. But lets be clear - something being similar to something else doesn't make it an infringement. Two photographs taken at the same time of day pointing at the same building under same weather conditions - very similar yet created totally independant of each other. Photographer A would need to prove that Photographer B had seen his work and subsequently copied it.
That is not actually true. The above references George Harrison case specifically stated that isn't required (at least under US law). In that particular case, there was no proof that George Harrison had ever heard the song he was being accused of copying and he denied having heard it, under oath and penalty of perjury. Yet the court found that having heard the work was not required to infringe the copyright.
And that's why, I think, the problem with copyright is greater. Yea, we all know a blatant copy is illegal. But how much are you allowed to be inspired by it? Patents do a good job of laying out what is protected that copyright lacks. Again, I'm not entirely sure if you can fix it, but the problem is there.
Also, sorry everyone else
