Robbing a work is not inspiration! Or, what no longer pays off?

In recent history there are several important legal cases that have clarified the difference between inspiration and plagiarism. One of them is the 2012 case of Temple Island Collections Ltd (claimant) versus New English Teas Ltd & Nicholas John Houghton (defendant), which took place in the United Kingdom.

This case concerned a dispute over the use of the well-known motif of a red London bus against a black-and-white background featuring the Houses of Parliament. The photographs were not identical; they were "only" very similar, and the "inspiration" was clearly noticeable. The court ruled that the other party had unlawfully robbed the essential elements of the original work, thereby infringing copyright. The judge emphasised that although the basic concept could be regarded as inspiration, reproducing the key elements already amounted to plagiarism. Specifically, the tea company had reproduced the combination of contrasting visual elements in the scene – the combination of the red bus with the black-and-white background, as well as the white sky with the rest of the photograph. When deciding whether a substantial part of the work has been reproduced, one must take into account the elements of the work that carry visual significance.

The judge followed this reasoning: the use of colour in a black-and-white photograph (à la Schindler's List) is not protected by copyright, nor is the combination of iconic images such as the double-decker bus and the Houses of Parliament. However, when you put the two together, a new intellectual creation arises.​ The defendant unsuccessfully argued that his work had not been created from the claimant's photographs. The defendant was aware of the claimant's work, since it was clear from the circumstances that the photographer had been tasked with producing a different image in order to avoid infringing the copyright of the claimant (his photographer). The case also shows that it is not necessary for the alleged infringement to look similar overall, because a substantial part can be reproduced without necessarily creating something that looks similar.

This case illustrates how important it is for creators to distinguish between what is still inspiration and what already amounts to the unauthorised taking of someone else's work.