I think that's why lawyers exist... to redraw the legal line with each and
every case. :-(
Kenneth Waller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: copyrights
I guess that's why the courts exist... to redraw the legal line with each
and every case. :-)
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Subject: Re: copyrights
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:15:21 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: copyrights
Makes sense to me. I'm no lawyer either.
Thinking along these lines though, TV stations routinely shoot footage on
street corners, at public events., etc., of persons who have not given
explicit signed consent to be photographed. Nor have they given consent
for the footage to be aired. That footage is shown on television news.
Stepping out on a limb... Somewhat implicit in everything a news
organization (at least here in the US) does is the idea that it will
attract advertisers and readership/viewership, hence generate income. I
don't see the difference in showing a picture on the air vs. on a
T-shirt.
News footage is considered editorial use.
The primary intention of the media is to inform the public, not to gather
revenues from advertisers, not that one would know it from the crap that
gets fobbed off as news nowadays.
Even then, the media needs to exercise caution. I recall Time magazine
landed in some shite a while back with a cover photo of a black person in
a business suit or some such, and a rather disparaging editorial comment
pasted over it.
They argued editorial comment, the victim of the photograph argued
otherwise, and Time lost.
William Robb
