I don't disagree with what you've stated except for the spelled out part...
for example WHAT screen size 1024x768, 800x600?
The other key thing, I think, is that as far as I know, the contributors
were not even going to receive a copy of the 'slide show'. So it's sort of
like giving your work away and not getting anything back for it. Not $, not
verbal or written praise, not the chance to see it in use. Sort of a
feeling like giving a bum $10 and believing they are going to buy a hot meal
when you walk away. Even though I was going to participate, that's the part
I disliked.
All that could have probably been avoided if the thing was officially
announced by Pentax Canada themselves.
Tom C.
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:23:32 -0500
"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
