I just don't understand this "no copyright issues" idea. Maybe there were
not issues as such, respecting who the pictures belong to.
But there are law libraries full of books on the subject and it is common
practice for corporations and individuals to put copyright notices on works.
It is also common practice for a corporation (wittingly or unwittingly
represented by an employee) to make a statement of ownership in clear
unambiguous language. You'll find it almost everywhere you look, where this
type of property is involved. To not have seen it present, simply makes
inquiring minds want to know.
I believe that was the reason why Marco's e-mail address was given to the
list... So that those who had questions could ask? Whether others did not
ask or did not feel the need to ask is actually irrelevant to my or anyone
else's actions.
Now this things seems to have morphed into 'it was stupid to ask questions'.
I highly disagree.
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:24:29 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Sure, it was informal. But, unfortunately, I don't think a company can do
an
informal approach when copyright issues for personal property/creativity
are
involved.
As far as I was able to tell from the initial request, there were no
copyright issues.
On a somewhat different topic, with the exception of the 3 people on list
who actually earn a living doing photography, any issues revolving around
copyright is little more than arrogant bullshit, and the three people here
who earn their living at photography seemed to be the ones who gave freely
of their work, no questions asked.
I am more than a little embarrassed that my name is is associated with
Pentax Discuss at the moment.
William Robb
