It's all a matter of (a very slight change in) perspective
February 3, 2015 2:19 PM   Subscribe

In these days of copyright madness it is refreshing to see a dispute resolved amicably by virtue of an amazing coincidence.
posted by grumpybear69 (30 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite
 
Nice 'berg.
posted by Wolfdog at 2:23 PM on February 3, 2015 [3 favorites]


I'm actually a bit cheered up to see this. Sometimes there IS a good explanation.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 2:29 PM on February 3, 2015


Even more amazing that they were both identically composed and/or cropped. Unless it was done after to highlight the similarity.
posted by fonetik at 2:29 PM on February 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


All I see is the ridiculousness of copyrights for nature photography.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:32 PM on February 3, 2015 [6 favorites]


Did either of them get a release form from the iceberg?
posted by Kabanos at 2:33 PM on February 3, 2015 [13 favorites]


Care to elaborate on that, ChurchHatesTucker?
posted by komara at 2:33 PM on February 3, 2015




Did either of them get a release form from the iceberg?

No, and it's a wonder that neither of them received a cease and defrost letter.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:38 PM on February 3, 2015 [36 favorites]


Apparently they tried to apologize but got the cold shoulder.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:41 PM on February 3, 2015 [8 favorites]


They aren't identically composed, fonetik. One clips off a tiny bit of the left part of the iceberg, and they have slightly different balances of sea and sky. Very similar, true, but you'd expect that when people are taking pictures of the same object from the same vantage point.
posted by tavella at 2:47 PM on February 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


"All I see is the ridiculousness of copyrights for nature photography."

How silly of a photographer to expect to be compensated for her skill, or for the inconsequential effort of traveling to remote locations to get the shot.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:50 PM on February 3, 2015 [4 favorites]


Anyone with a cracked copy of Photoshop can slightly change the perspective of an iceberg, that's like the first thing they teach you in cracked Photoshop school.
posted by naju at 2:57 PM on February 3, 2015 [7 favorites]


Darn it, they could have made a stereogram instead of that animated GIF.

This reminds me of the controversy over the Pulitzer Prize for the photo known as Burst of Joy by Sal Veder. There was another photographer standing right next to him, who took a shot at almost exactly the same time. Only by close inspection could you tell the photos apart. Both shots ran in national newspapers, and both were submitted for the Pulitzer. It is believed that the judges mistook the photos as duplicates, and votes for both pics were recorded for Veder. Either photo could have won.

I looked all over and I can't find anything about this controversy on the net. I only remember it because a friend of mine had a photo entered in the Pulitzer that year.
posted by charlie don't surf at 3:03 PM on February 3, 2015 [5 favorites]


I bet this sort of thing happens all the time.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
posted by iotic at 3:05 PM on February 3, 2015 [9 favorites]


That's one titanic coincidence.

(I got nothing)
posted by dirigibleman at 3:33 PM on February 3, 2015 [3 favorites]


This story fails because there is no joyous reunion, no hugging, no reminiscing together about that day on that cruise and that iceberg. It's like an afternoon special that cuts out after the second commercial break.
posted by chavenet at 3:45 PM on February 3, 2015 [3 favorites]


That's really cold.
posted by BlueHorse at 3:54 PM on February 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


I don't understand. Wasn't it like, the first the thing to check if they were both on the alleged cruise? Isn't the photo forensics a little unnecessary after that?
posted by PMdixon at 3:58 PM on February 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


charlie don't surf - six degrees of eponysterical
posted by univac at 4:11 PM on February 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


If you go deep, there's always way more below than appears on the surface for some of these stories.
posted by SpacemanStix at 4:37 PM on February 3, 2015 [4 favorites]


And yet when I explain to the judge that I was standing slightly to the left of J.K. Rowling, somehow I'm a "plagiarist"!
posted by No-sword at 4:49 PM on February 3, 2015 [13 favorites]


I don't understand. Wasn't it like, the first the thing to check if they were both on the alleged cruise? Isn't the photo forensics a little unnecessary after that?

It is a lot easier to look at the two pictures that you have sitting in front of you than it is to establish who was where 8 years ago, especially when you think one of them could be lying.
posted by aubilenon at 7:22 PM on February 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


Kyle Cassidy just tweeted about something similar happening to him. (And someone did make a stereogram of it.)
posted by Lyn Never at 7:39 PM on February 3, 2015


All right all right, here's a stereogram for you nerds.

You nerds? No, that's not right.

Here's a stereogram for us nerds.
posted by a car full of lions at 9:36 PM on February 3, 2015 [2 favorites]


Care to elaborate on that, ChurchHatesTucker?

Yeah. Unless you're operating in a very controlled studio environment, you're just making mechanical copies, which aren't copyrightable. This example just highlights the ridiculousness of it all.

Oh, the photogs will go on about framing etc., but you re-crop one of their photos and it's an infringement. Pick one and stick with it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:52 PM on February 3, 2015


I think it's likely that coincidences like these are going to be more common as time goes by, as photography equipment is more affordable now, and with digital cameras, the costs of taking multiple shots goes way down. But I am not a photographer in any sense of the word, so this is just a guess on my part.
posted by Alnedra at 12:13 AM on February 4, 2015


All right all right, here's a stereogram for you nerds.

Ooh, I almost had it! Wait, wait. I got it! 2 dolphins leaping out of the water, right?
posted by amarynth at 6:23 AM on February 4, 2015 [3 favorites]


> "All I see is the ridiculousness of copyrights for nature photography."

How silly of a photographer to expect to be compensated for her skill, or for the inconsequential effort of traveling to remote locations to get the shot.


Photographers should be paid, but copyright is not based on skill or effort.
posted by Monochrome at 11:02 AM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


Monochrome - that wiki page does seem to link copyright laws to effort, if not skill
posted by iotic at 7:34 AM on February 5, 2015


The page indicates that Britain has rejected the sweat of the brow doctrine.
posted by Monochrome at 10:04 AM on February 5, 2015


« Older Cody and the Gang are at the Park   |   The music behind the worst album covers (SLYT... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments