copyright
Is the composition of a photo protected by copyright?
<p>Norwegian photographer Stig Håvard Dirdal <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10158736038862379&amp;set=a.481203947378" rel="nofollow noreferrer">recently accused</a> a Russian movie of plagiarism due to them recreating his work from 2015:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10158736038862379&amp;set=a.481203947378" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/XWKVE.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>But is this actually something that would be protected by copyright, at least according to US law? It seems like while the <em>composition</em> of the photo of the same, it won't be covered by copyright protections as one can't use it to protect ideas.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a></p>
<p>The composition of a photograph, a painting, or an image of any sort is one of the elements that can be protected by copyright, and indeed one of those aspects that make an image original and thus a proper subject of a copyright under US law.</p>
<p>A new image that imitates the original and distinctive composition of another might be held to be a derivative work, and thus an infringement of copyright if done without permission. Note that the composition must be original. A photo of, say, two people standing side-by-side has been done many times, and would probably not have any distinctive element of composition.</p>
<p>The images shown as part of the question look rather distinctive to me, but for all I know this is a cliche that has been done over and over. If this came to an actual lawsuit a defendant could present evidence showing the composition to have been previously used by others, and thus common coin, free for anyone to adopt. This would be similar to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_faire" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Scènes à faire</em></a> concept. Things that have been done over and over are not original and are thus not protectable by copyright. That would ultimately be a judgement for the court to make, dependent on the facts of a specific case.</p>
<p><em>I suspect this answer is correct for the laws of many countries, but I can only confirm it for US copyright law.</em></p>
