On 3 May 2013, at 23:22, John Sessoms <jsessoms...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > From: Bob W >> That may be the case in the US, but not in the UK. > > That appears to be the purpose of the change brought by the new law. >
No, the proposed law has nothing to do with whether people could claim damages or not for breaches of copyright. But if Satan Inc. stole my pictures and claimed they had looked diligently but fruitlessly for the owner, I would have to prove that they hadn't, which would be rather difficult. But what tends to happen is that neither party wants to enrich the lawyers if they can avoid it, so they settle out of court. In a case like this, if I could show that I was the rightful owner I suspect that Satan Inc. would pay for the use they'd made of the pictures, and I would accept, as I imagine most photographers would. Trying to get some sort of punitive damages would be in nobody's interest but the lawyers'. B -- 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.
