This week I learned something interesting about copyright, that I thought I 'd share with you.

We all see photography as art, and it definitely is art, just like painting, sculpture and architecture.  We also know there are severe restrictions when we take photos of art.  However, there are forms of art that are less obvious, like flower arranging, ice sculptures or ... food art. 
 
This is what happened : I had been playing with food on a rainy day with my little nephews, and the results were quite fun.  So afterwards I took a few photos of fruit and vegetables with faces carved in them.  The pictures were really fun and probably saleable. 
Meanwhile I came across a book "Food Play" by Saxton Freymann, who made food carving a true art form and published lots of books about it.  The second page talked about copyright, not only for the pictures in the book, but also for the food designs itself. 
To avoid copyright problems, I wrote an e-mail to Freymann's company, and the answer was loud and clear (but very friendly) : I can create food art as much as I want, but whenever I try to sell something that resembles his designs (even slightly) I will meet his lawyers in court.
Well, I can hardly buy all of his books to check if my radish-guy or pepper-face resembles one or more in his books!
That's bad luck of course, so the microstock sites will have to do without my funny fruit & vegs, but it makes you think, doesn't it?

What if I make a nice flower arrangement, take photos of it and sell them on Shutterstock.  Couldn't there be somewhere in the world a person who specializes in the exact style I used for the flower arrangement, published twenty books about it (unknown to me), who challenges me in court for copying his style?

Suppose I find a "niche" subject of my own, like "flowers with carved faces" - who says there isn't someone who has been doing that for years and is truly famous for it? 
In short :  even if we create artwork ourselves as photography subjects, we are not 100% safe and can still be accused of copyright infringement ? 
Wow, scary idea!

So afterwards I took a few photos of fruit and vegetables with faces carved in them.

The only problem I see is that if the face is recognizable, your will have to ask a model release from the veggies, and if they're not 18 yet, ask a gardian consent from the gardener 

Seriously, if ideas and concepts were copyrighted, we should all pay Yuri Arcurs when we do a shot of smiling dynamic businessmen around a flipchart. IMHO, the only thing that is copyrighted is the actual photos from the book itself.

Seriously, if ideas and concepts were copyrighted, we should all pay Yuri Arcurs when we do a shot of smiling dynamic businessmen around a flipchart.

He's hardly the first to shoot people in a business situation.

My initial reaction was also �you can�t copyright an idea�, but the writers of the books would not sue me for playing with food, but for copying (and commercializing!) their copyrighted designs with food.  As they have already filled 10 books with it, it's hard to carve a face in fruit in a way that has not been done in one of their books already, or looks like one of their designs. 
You're right that they cannot forbid me to create food faces, but they claim copyright for the style, not the hobby.

As for YingYang�s points :
I didn�t touch his images, not even part of it.
No the faces are not recognizable, just funny.
I cannot take photos of his fruits and vegs, as he ate them already  , but I can imitate his style.
And last : my e-mail was to the writer himself, not to his lawyer, and he answered in person.