Subject: Re: copyright?
> I'm not a regular in here, but caught some threads that were crossposted
> and became curious, so looked up the subject of copyright and images
> posted in the "public domain" - there are so many successful court actions!
> But found this particular case that some may find pertinant.
> The court ruled in favor of Mr Curry, an ex MTV presenter, after he had
> posted to his website a series of pix of a family holiday. Four of these pix
> were then lifted and used by a gossip mag, Mr Curry sued and won!
> Under the proviso of "some rights reserved" rather than "All rights
> Read it here:
> Any views? Comments?
> My server dosen't allow crossposting, so this is a multipost.
> Please feel free to flame me
The gossip mag was obviously sold and so they made money from Mr Curry's
work - the fact he won make perfect sense.
Others have a rather different view - they'd like to put their own
pictures on the web but are terrified someone else will 'steal' their
work. As long as credit for the photo is given or at least copied work
is not claimed as one's own, or no profit (direct or otherwise) is
gained, then there's little the copyright holder can do except request
the photo be withdrawn.
I'm sure many amateurs with more money than talent think that because
they invested thousands of dollars in hardware, anything they produce
has to be worth something because of the initial investment...
Personally I feel if I find a striking or original photo on the net, I'd
like to get it - not for any commercial considerations but simply to
have a beautiful thing.
View All Messages in rec.photo.misc
Copyright © 2006 WatermarkFactory.com. All Rights Reserved.