But if the work is not copyrighted, how can it be copyright infringement?
>From what I understand the work belongs to the corporation not the
individual(s). In that case one could argue that taking a picture of
virtually anything is copyright infringement because it is someones
handiwork...
Just a question I have wondered about... Public Libraries have to be the
biggest, most blatant violators of the spirit of the copyright laws. I
appreciate them, but the authors & artists are potentially losing billions
of dollars because of this sort of "communism".
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: Flash Diffusers & Geekness
>
> --- "Peifer, William [OCDUS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Does this sound like it may work? Any other
> > suggestions?
>
> It sounds like something along the lines of copyright
> infringment, even though there is no artist's name it
> is still someone's handiwork.
>
> Nick
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
