Re: OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
Hey, I'd never thought of She (who must be) Obeyed for S.O. I'll have to remember than one. (The phrase is from Rumpole of the Bailey, isn't it?) I don't know Mark, but now that you mention it, that sounds very likely... Cotty (born to serve) ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
No,no,no, Anthony - go to the back of the class! 'She' was written by H. Rider Haggard. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia On Thursday, February 07, 2002 5:49 PM, Anthony Farr [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Rumpole was quoting the honorific given to the leader of a lost civilisation in the novel She (at least the sixties movie with Ursula Andress playing She went by that name) which was written by Rudyard Kipling AFAIK. Regards, Anthony Farr - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
In today's world of no committment, SO stands for significant other. On Wednesday 06 February 2002 10:44 am, you wrote: Roger that. Folks still have to assess things for themselves and pick their battles, decide what constitutes winning and execute the ones they can win. What the hell is an SO? Regards, Bob... -- Kenneth Archer + San Antonio, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ #24980801 Powered by Linux ++ Mailed by Kmail - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What the hell is an SO? Significant Other (usually meaning live-in mate, boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, husband, spouse or other) Julie - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
Bob Blakely wrote: What the hell is an SO? Usually significant other -- a non-specific reference to wife, girl/boy friend, lover, etc. Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
I once found myself at a dinner where everyone was divorced. I remarked, You don't really know someone till you marry them. To which another guest replied, No: You don't REALLY know someone till you divorce them. [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
Could this qualify as suffering for the sake of art? Regards, Bob... Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. - Samuel Adams, 1771 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If these were naked pics of the ex wife that a guy was putting up, that would be one thing and slanderous indeed. It would be time for court. Bob, I almost replied to your first message, but had to respond to this one. Although not naked, these photos are erotic or at the least, provocative. To make things worse, it was my SO who found them and pointed them out to him. I agree it is something he shouldn't fret about too much, but when something this personal is out there for everyone to see, including her real name.I can understand his anger. Julie - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
What the hell is an SO? Significant Other. Partner. Spouse. Other half. Mate. (S)He who must be obeyed. Financial Adherence Tactician Concerning Overspending Weakness (FATCOW). Cotty (PS not really that last one. Please. No. Show mercy - oh God, she's smiling - please don't smile. Oh no) ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
Rumpole was quoting the honorific given to the leader of a lost civilisation in the novel She (at least the sixties movie with Ursula Andress playing She went by that name) which was written by Rudyard Kipling AFAIK. Regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What the hell is an SO? Significant Other. Partner. Spouse. Other half. Mate. (S)He who must be obeyed. Hey, I'd never thought of She (who must be) Obeyed for S.O. I'll have to remember than one. (The phrase is from Rumpole of the Bailey, isn't it?) -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Who owns a photo?
Wendy's post (model release form) brought a question to mind. A friend took some pictures of his (now ex-) wife for personal use. When she left she took the photos with her and allowed them to be published on-line. Because he feels these photos are personal he isn't happy to see them posted on the web. Although I'm sure it isn't worth legal action, can he advise the site to remove the photos with the threat of legal action? Julie - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Who owns a photo?
Thanks for the replies. these photos were taken while they were married, they may be joint owners. (They would be in my state.) I expect this is correct since we are in a joint property state. And, like I said, it's different in various jurisdictions anyway. Unfortunately, if he wants a definitive opinion, he'll likely have to contact a local lawyer. I doubt he is willing to go to the expense of hiring a lawer since he's paid them plenty so far for the divorce. But who knows, there are still many bitter feelings there. Julie - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Who owns a photo?
Whining over photos left over from a divorce is not very becoming of a man. To me, it shows... bitterness, or possibly vindictiveness, and is probably accompanied by all the usual rationalization folks put forth in their attempts to claim it's all about righteousness. Yeah, I'm always opinionated. Regards, Bob... Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. - Samuel Adams, 1771 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the replies. these photos were taken while they were married, they may be joint owners. (They would be in my state.) I expect this is correct since we are in a joint property state. And, like I said, it's different in various jurisdictions anyway. Unfortunately, if he wants a definitive opinion, he'll likely have to contact a local lawyer. I doubt he is willing to go to the expense of hiring a lawer since he's paid them plenty so far for the divorce. But who knows, there are still many bitter feelings there. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Who owns a photo?
You forgot mean spiritedness. National People's Radio should keep that right on the tip of your tongue, for instant use. Len --- -Original Message- From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 12:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Who owns a photo? Whining over photos left over from a divorce is not very becoming of a man. To me, it shows... bitterness, or possibly vindictiveness, and is probably accompanied by all the usual rationalization folks put forth in their attempts to claim it's all about righteousness. Yeah, I'm always opinionated. Regards, Bob... - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Who owns a photo?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 2:27 PM Subject: Who owns a photo? Wendy's post (model release form) brought a question to mind. A friend took some pictures of his (now ex-) wife for personal use. When she left she took the photos with her and allowed them to be published on-line. Because he feels these photos are personal he isn't happy to see them posted on the web. Although I'm sure it isn't worth legal action, can he advise the site to remove the photos with the threat of legal action? Sure he can. Unless he in some way has transferred his rights to the publisher ( by giving away, selling or leasing them out) he can order them to remove the pictures and/or sue them for copyright infringement. A simple case. (As for who owns the actual prints, or even the negs - that's a different question, and doesn't have any bearing on the right to copy them. Remember to always distinguish between an actual print (or other type of physical copy) and the rights to said picture.) (Disclaimer - I don't know the meaning of joint property state. Does this mean she can smash my car, my camera, my guitar and set fire to my all my negs and then have to pay for only half of the damages, claiming the stuff actually just as much belongs to her?) Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Who owns a photo?
- Original Message - From: Len Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 12:51 AM Subject: Re: Who owns a photo? (Disclaimer - I don't know the meaning of joint property state. Does this mean she can smash my car, my camera, my guitar and set fire to my all my negs and then have to pay for only half of the damages, claiming the stuff actually just as much belongs to her?) Lasse - I don't know if it goes that far. I mean that's a pretty outrageous example you put together, Yes, I did this on purpose... but in a joint property state, half of everything is hers. Jeez, who is this lady? Can you introduce me to her? :-) or, Jeez, this sounds like true family communism... Anyway, I don't know if what your saying actually is legally the case, or just the way people put it, like they sometimes do here in Sweden. It may even be similar to Swedish law (and I'd guess it's pretty similar in neighbouring Scandinavian countries). Roughly it goes like this: Any property that you are the sole owner of, is yours only. You own your own book, camera, car, guitar etc. She can't do anything with it, like smashing it up, selling it or giving it away, or take any other possession of it without your consent. (However, there might of course be property of joint ownership as well, - typically a house, a car, furniture etc.) However, in case of a divorce, we are entitled to half the *value* of the other party's property. But I still own my camera. She can't just take it, but I may have to pay her half of it's value in order to keep it though. Not all property though goes into this pot that is to be shared to half it's value. We may have made agreements on what property is to be shared (long story), or there is typically some property that won't be included. One of which, interestingly enough, is copyright (and other intellectual rights. If it has already been transferred to a publisher, it will be included though.). This means that the photographer's copyright will be unaffected by the divorce. It stays with him. The most extreme case I've read about was when one party sold some of the joint property for a bargain price and then grinned a lot while turning over half of the proceeds of the sale. In some of the joint property states that can be done, and in some it can't be done. The real problem is that, in several states, the wife gets it all and the husband gets nothing. Can you give me her name and phone number? Or just tell her I think she looks nice and give her my email addy... That makes the joint property states look pretty good. Hm... Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
I've never liked the term mean spiritedness. Some folks toss it out for any old thing. It seems to imply (to me) some permanent defect of character (Their spirit or essence is mean), and among our politicians, this is exactly what they are implying by way of attempted slander. When a politician or any other person uses the term mean spiritedness in a political setting, I usually mark them (mentally) as someone not worth listening to, and I don't care what side of the isle they sit on. Most times, bitterness and vindictiveness are transitory and tied to specific situations (especially in the case of divorce). Even the best of us may harbor these for a period after a traumatic event. I know I have. Still, I just don't think these look good in folks, and the sooner it subsides and they return to their normal state, the better for them and us. If these were naked pics of the ex wife that a guy was putting up, that would be one thing and slanderous indeed. It would be time for court. This is a guy, and according to the Old Boy's Club rules, one should buck up, get over it and move on. Harboring resentment over anything about anyone just allows the person to live inside your head rent free. Again, I ain't God. It's just my view from going through divorce myself, listening to other folks who break up and listening to folks in 12 step programs. Other folks see things differently. Regards, Bob... Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. - Samuel Adams, 1771 From: Paris, Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] You forgot mean spiritedness. National People's Radio should keep that right on the tip of your tongue, for instant use. From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Whining over photos left over from a divorce is not very becoming of a man. To me, it shows... bitterness, or possibly vindictiveness, and is probably accompanied by all the usual rationalization folks put forth in their attempts to claim it's all about righteousness. Yeah, I'm always opinionated. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: Should one get pissy over photos in a divorce? (was Who owns a photo?)
This is too late for anyone who has been through a divorce. But for those who haven't, the best way to divide property IMHO is to let either party divide it into halves and then let the other party in the divorce select which half they want. This is on good authority because I have had a lot of time to thing about it. My wife and I have been married 41 years and I am still wondering how long it will last. -- Kenneth Archer + San Antonio, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ #24980801 Powered by Linux ++ Mailed by Kmail - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
