Look at the photograph. I don't believe the report entirely, but I did look at every report I could find, (all pretty much identical). The attorneys involved do know better, what they are engaged in is called gaming the system, the law is whatever you can get a judge to agree to. There's also the monetary consideration, if the Photographer can be found to be in violation of a copyright its a civil penalty the Plantation will get the money, in trespass, it's criminal and the Court will get the money and the Plantation only gets recompensed for actual damages, which they probably can't prove, since there are none.
graywolf wrote: > Do we know that? That is what the reporter said, but I would think the > attorneys > involved would know better. Just as some here seem to confuse copyright and > property rights, so do reporters, sigh! That is the problem with trying an > issue > via news reports, and why hearsay is not given much weight as evidence. > > So it appears that we are pretty much in agreement, only I did not consider > the > report as accurate as you seem to have. > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> You're right it isn't a copyright or trademark issue, it is a property >> rights/trespass issue, however the lawyers for the Plantation decided to >> sue the photographer for copyright infringement, for which they clearly >> have no standing. >> > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
