|Publish Post: A red bus yesterday|
One of Michael Edenborough’s more interesting arguments was that a cropped photo is, by its very nature, a substantial part of the original photograph. Whilst there is a logic behind such a presumption it is unnecessary and potentially misleading to incorporate it into the test for what is a “substantial part”.
|Is the photo on the right a substantial part of the one on the left?|
|But does it follow that the photo on the right uses a substantial part of the photo on the left?|
It would be interesting to better understand the reasons and motivations for cropping photographs in the first place. If the photographer readers out there (Tom Ang, I'm particularly talking about you) could provide some insight, it would be much appreciated.