Sorry Jack you can't copyright a work of nature. They can go after him for trespass. Don't help the idiots any more than is necessary.
Jack Davis wrote: > Mr Ham had no right to do what he did. "Private" property rights should > always be respected especially when privacy is to be compromised by > being held up to the world to see. > "Privacy" and "security" are too closely related these days. > That being said, I'm somewhat ambivalent about being restricted from > taking pictures of something which is on private property, but from a > public property position. > > Jack > --- Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Just found this interesting, what do you guys think? >> >> http://www.thestate.com/local/story/190126.html >> >> rg2 >> -- >> "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its >> composition" >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and follow the directions. >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. > Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
