7 ms·

Side-by-side: http://i.imgur.com/vGmlRj3.jpg http://i.imgur.com/vGmlRj3.jpg The photographer is in over her head. She owns her photo, but she doesn't own the "

Side-by-side: http://i.imgur.com/vGmlRj3.jpg http://i.imgur.com/vGmlRj3.jpg The photographer is in over her head. She owns her photo, but she doesn't own the "idea" of the back of Rod Stewart's head. Not even Rod Stewart owns that "idea." And while we can't just copy her photo, we can take another photo that expresses the same idea (Stewart's head). And since there aren't that many way to photograph Rod Stewart's rear-dome, the photos would have to be essentially identical for any copyright infringement. The photos here are not identical: the light is different, the hair is messed up differently... it looks like a losing case.

galaxyLogic 12y ago
I don't think she's over her head. I think she's after the money
duncanawoods 12y ago
You might be right but it reminds me of the red bus case which may indicate the changing scope of copyright in the future: http://azrights.com/media/uncategorized/2013/11/photographers-photography-copyright-and-the-red-bus-case/ http://azrights.com/media/uncategorized/2013/11/photographer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_v_New_English_Teas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_v_New_English_Tea...
- mamurphy 12y ago
  As detailed in this blog post (http://permissionmachine.com/blog/rod-stewart-sued-for-recreating-a-photo-of-the-back-of-his-head/ http://permissionmachine.com/blog/rod-stewart-sued-for-recre...), the Rod Stewart photos look much more similar to the disputed photos in Temple Island v. New English Teas (the claimant won in that suit). When I viewed the side-by-side comparison, my reaction was "wow, she actually has a point!" not "this is a frivolous suit." Both photos show Rod with a black, long sleeve garment, show only his head, neck, and left shoulder, and have not dissimilar lighting and hair styling.
a-nikolaev 12y ago
The image of the back of his head became memorable to people primarily not becase of that particular photo, but because of the music on the album. So, I think, Rod Stewart himself is primarily responsible for making the image famous. He created this cultural artifact / meme.
- pluma 12y ago
  Sure, but legally speaking that's just very nice of him to promote someone else's product (the image) with his music. It doesn't affect the ownership of that image.
unwind 12y ago
Great comparison, thanks. I guess I'm missing the point when thinking "there's no way his head looks even remotely the same, almost 35 years later". I was wrong, it looks identical. That's just scary.

galaxyLogic 12y ago

I don't think she's over her head. I think she's after the money

duncanawoods 12y ago

You might be right but it reminds me of the red bus case which may indicate the changing scope of copyright in the future: http://azrights.com/media/uncategorized/2013/11/photographers-photography-copyright-and-the-red-bus-case/ http://azrights.com/media/uncategorized/2013/11/photographer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_v_New_English_Teas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_v_New_English_Tea...

mamurphy 12y ago
As detailed in this blog post (http://permissionmachine.com/blog/rod-stewart-sued-for-recreating-a-photo-of-the-back-of-his-head/ http://permissionmachine.com/blog/rod-stewart-sued-for-recre...), the Rod Stewart photos look much more similar to the disputed photos in Temple Island v. New English Teas (the claimant won in that suit). When I viewed the side-by-side comparison, my reaction was "wow, she actually has a point!" not "this is a frivolous suit." Both photos show Rod with a black, long sleeve garment, show only his head, neck, and left shoulder, and have not dissimilar lighting and hair styling.

a-nikolaev 12y ago

The image of the back of his head became memorable to people primarily not becase of that particular photo, but because of the music on the album. So, I think, Rod Stewart himself is primarily responsible for making the image famous. He created this cultural artifact / meme.

pluma 12y ago
Sure, but legally speaking that's just very nice of him to promote someone else's product (the image) with his music. It doesn't affect the ownership of that image.

unwind 12y ago

Great comparison, thanks. I guess I'm missing the point when thinking "there's no way his head looks even remotely the same, almost 35 years later". I was wrong, it looks identical. That's just scary.