Was it stolen or not?

In response to Mr Freger Reyes’s Facebook post, I believe that the issue is a perfect case study in delineating what copyright can and cannot protect.

Mr Freger Reyes, the aforementioned photographer, argued that a fellow photographer named George Tapan stole his seven year old concept of a silhouette photo of a marching band (shot against the Dipolog sunset); and that Mr Tapan made money by selling his own version of the concept to the city of Dipolog.

Based on Mr Reyes’s reaction, I assume that he misunderstood how copyright is applied in such situations.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) explains that while copyright covers a wide range of intellectual property, including photographs (the nature or format of the work in question), and that it is in effect upon creation of the work, it does not extend to mere ideas or concepts, of which Mr Reyes claims ownership in this matter.

And so it is clear that Mr Reyes’s claim of theft has no legal basis or weight at all.

In addition, I believe no copying of work occurred in the first place.

In response to Mr Reyes, Mr Tapan claims (in a Facebook post) that they were together when both photographs were taken, and that Mr Tapan expressed to Mr Reyes his intent to take a photo of the same subject.

And so it looks like the “issue” is simply two photographers having the same idea, based on their situation.

In photography, especially in photojournalism, photographers having similar shots is nothing new, given that photographers work with similar subjects most of the time.

In conclusion, I believe having similar styles, framing, or concepts — as disappointing as this may be — is no cause to accuse someone of theft.

This case also underlines that creators should know of the limits of copyright.

Disclaimer: This essay was written as a requirement for the Diploma in Visual Journalism program of the Asian Center for Journalism at the Ateneo de Manila University.