The Online Photographer is linking to a Slate post called Can photographers be plagiarists? by David Segal. I'm not a legal scholar, but as an artist I think the answer would be yes. I think the standard for proof of this charge should be set very high, but at some point there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Letting an artists work inspire you is one thing, but an outright copy is another. Take the Nanpu bridge photographs for instance. If Horst and Daniel Zielske had added something to the mix, I would never have considered given Peter Bialobrzeski's claim of plagiarism any credit at all. Looking at the photographs though, I don't see where they've added anything to the work of Peter Bialobrzeski. They appear to me to be very, very similar. Where is their artistic vision? Where is their modification that made the composition better? The change in lighting, or the change of angle that makes this their work? I don't see it. Again, I'm by no means a legal scholar, but I think Peter Bialobrzeski may have a case. In looking at both these photos, I see only his hard work.