On 19 Jun 2005 at 21:42, Butch Black wrote:
Go back to the deep pocket theory. Who would you rather sue? Joe six-pack
net worth $50G or Wally-World, net worth $50B. Plus my guess is that suing
the
customer would get the photographer little more then legal costs "But you
Honor,
I just wanted to use the family portrait for my X-mas cards"
Sad, I still can't accept this concept of pushing the blame about to simply
obtain the highest return. The courts who allow this type of caper to
propagate
are partially to blame. It's just all to easy for anyone to assign blame to
someone else for their stupidity/deceit days particularly if the blamed have
lots of cash and will keep the legal profession in the money. :-(
Rob Studdert
I agree. The blame, and persecution should be on the person trying to get
the copies made, but I also believe that retailers need to make an honest
effort not to copy photographs that appear to be taken professionally even
when the customer says they are not. I think this not dissimilar to selling
alcohol or tobacco to under age people (though I wish there were stronger
laws and penalties for the kids who were trying to buy it). The deep pockets
part is a sad commentary of our times.
Butch
