"Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Point taken, > >But why then is any size image copyrighted?
Now *that's* one I can't answer. I put a copyright notice on all my online photos even though there's almost no way to catch an infringer and an insignificant amount of money to be gained from doing so. >I just have to say this one more time... it's not that a nefarious purpose >was suspected... it's that having a little pride in my images, I'd like to >know exactly what their terms of use is, especially given that I can expect >zero compensation... But it was spelled out: Just screen display at their shows. Any copyrights not explicitly granted always remain with a copyright owner. >and for the last time I'll belabor it, if this was all >spelled out up front in an official manner, any worry, doubt, suspicion, >would have been avoided. I think Bill Robb is right (damn, don't let anyone know I said that!) about cultural differences being at work here. Some people, Americans in particular, seem suspicious if everything isn't spelled out in detail in legalese. Others get suspicious if there is a lot of legal language present. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I just finished a graduate-level course in multimedia law and have some knowledge of copyright to begin with (*and* I regularly put images on my web site where anyone can grab them), so this offer just seemed like a little bit of fun to me. >To me it would be blindingly obvious that a camera company would already >have loads of pictures to use w/o having to ask for more. All the camera manufacturers have loads of pictures already. None ever have *enough* though. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
