MicrostockGroup

With more of the background in this case it is making more sense. The issue is more complicated than it first appeared.

In general terms if your taking a photo of something you didn't arrange/create yourself. ie taking a landscape, architectural photo of popular landmarks etc then I don't think you have much hope in complaining about copying.

Unless you really go to some effort like renting a performing troupe of clowns to stand infront of the houses of parliment. (Can you hire politician's ?).

I'm not saying that I'd be happy if someone systematically copied my portfolio. Note to copiers spread your love around and you'll have less chance of being caught.

There are so many locations where every vantage point has already been shot. If I take a photo of say the Taj Mahl do I have to search every stock photo library and contact every professional photographer to check they haven't already taken a photo before me from the same spot.

I see more problems with the copying of ideas or concepts.
eg
house outlines made of tools
gold fish jumping out of fish bowls
chains and locks around money
girl blowing dandilion
pink piggie banks with people putting money in them, smashing with hammers
etc.

I'm not going to go digging, but if I remember right, the issue there was the style and set of the images, that the original artist said she had created. Something like babies floating on clouds. And I don't remember who won either. If that's the right one, she was claiming to have created that as her own style. I'd guess it lost as concept can't be copyrighted, while exact replication, can be. (ad with girl and guy on the merry go round in polka dot dress comes to mind. Copy cat lost.)