I found some discussion of copyright infringement by imitation here: https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=scholarship#page=19 https:

I found some discussion of copyright infringement by imitation here: https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=scholarship#page=19 https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&con.... [0] In general it seems to be fine to photograph the same object as an earlier copyrighted work, as long as "original aspects" are not copied such as lighting or placement of the subject. The lighting is different here, though the placement barely differs. There's also not a clear "first" since the photographs were taken almost simultaneously. I think at the end of the day, a judge would chock up any alleged infringement as de minimis. [1] This also brings to mind the image of paparazzi or sports photographers all in a narrow press area rapidly shooting off pictures. I don't think any of them have had trouble selling their photographs to agencies despite being in the same location and capturing the same subject simultaneously. [0]: Kogan, Terry S., "How Photographs Infringe" (2017). Utah Law Faculty Scholarship. 20. https://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship/20 https://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship/20 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright