Well, as to the legality, one does not have the right to sell images of someone else's clearly identifiable property without their permission. One does have the right to take the photos, without violating any laws of trespass, it is selling the images that is questionable. One would assume that the right to the income from ones own property is clear, otherwise I want every one on the list to send me rent. regardless of who owns the property they live on <GRIN>.
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 > -- 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.
