Ok, bad wording, what I meant is that this is a typical photo taken during an overcast day where you don't expose for the sky: low contrast (you can see it from the buildings and flat shadows in the original photo) and blown up sky.
So may guess is that the original one was taken on an overcast day but the sky was not blown up enough to make the buildings pop up more so it was removed in post processing. Nothing much creative or new here.
The photos are too small to make a good evaluation, but to me it seems that the second photo was not even taken on a overcast day (shadows on the building are more harsh).
These are just speculations and it may as well be that also the first photo was taken on a sunny day and the photgrapher simply lowered the contrast in post processing (the judgement describes only the manipilations "In summary").
Anyway, this doesn't change a single thing in my opinion. I would go as far as to say that white sky is not only a common technique, but it's also iconic in this case (i.e. it was notthat much of a creative idea to express something unique).
The judgement is full of notes taken about the several differences between the photos, among which composition itself is the most prominent, yet the sky becomes so important??
Really, I believe the whole thing is much simpler that all what is written in the judgement: a) the two parties involved already had problems in the past (see point 2) and b) the judge was biased by the fact that the second photo was done in a similar way on purpose (Point 10 "He clearly knew about the claimant's work when the second image was produced because the whole point of the exercise was to produce a non-infringing image given the complaint about the first image the defendants had used")
So may guess is that the original one was taken on an overcast day but the sky was not blown up enough to make the buildings pop up more so it was removed in post processing. Nothing much creative or new here.
The photos are too small to make a good evaluation, but to me it seems that the second photo was not even taken on a overcast day (shadows on the building are more harsh).
These are just speculations and it may as well be that also the first photo was taken on a sunny day and the photgrapher simply lowered the contrast in post processing (the judgement describes only the manipilations "In summary").
Anyway, this doesn't change a single thing in my opinion. I would go as far as to say that white sky is not only a common technique, but it's also iconic in this case (i.e. it was notthat much of a creative idea to express something unique).
The judgement is full of notes taken about the several differences between the photos, among which composition itself is the most prominent, yet the sky becomes so important??
Really, I believe the whole thing is much simpler that all what is written in the judgement: a) the two parties involved already had problems in the past (see point 2) and b) the judge was biased by the fact that the second photo was done in a similar way on purpose (Point 10 "He clearly knew about the claimant's work when the second image was produced because the whole point of the exercise was to produce a non-infringing image given the complaint about the first image the defendants had used")