Alex Wild’s post about the possibility of infringement on his photography is burgeoning a new discussion of where the limits of copyright lie – legally, ethically, artistically. Very interesting read… the contributions range from thought-provoking evaluation to mind-boggling underrepresentation of the process of staging a photograph like Alex’.
What was copied from the photograph was simply the knowledge of what the ant looks like, and indeed the photo contained very little beyond that to begin with. It’s a catalogue-style shot… the only thing that was copied is the photograph’s subject, which Wild didn’t create.
I don’t think this is really a question of copying art so much as repeating facts