[ratpack] Re: [ratpack] Re: [elky] OT: An interesting email exchange

From: "muttley128@xxxxxxxxxxx" <muttley128@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Rat Pack" <ratpack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 6 May 2010 11:01:30 -0700
I think that would be useful to all id us zamboni

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

----- Reply message -----
From: "Michael Wells" <mcwellsphoto@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, May 6, 2010 11:49 AM
Subject: [ratpack] Re: [elky] OT: An interesting email exchange
To: <ratpack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I have a dvd that goes over copyright issues and how to file your copyright
images. If anybody is interested I'll dig around and see if I can locate the
dvd for your viewing pleasure.

Zamboni

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:39 AM, <thanks2frank@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Only problem I see with this is that unless you register your images with
> the library of congress your "copyright" isn't actionable or at least that
> is my understanding from an article in photoshop user. Your thoughts or
> understanding on the matter
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Larry Knight <carpixguy@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Date: *Thu, 6 May 2010 11:33:24 -0600
> *To: *<ratpack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject: *[ratpack] Re: [elky] OT: An interesting email exchange
>
> I love it Ray, well thought out and expressed. Can I use your verbage next
> time I get an ass that gives me the same argument?
> Has he responeded yet?
> Nice Job Mr. Rat!!
> Larr
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Ray Buck <rbuck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> After researching this further, in print and on the web, this is the email
>> that will be sent to the person attempting to deprive me of my intellectual
>> property.
>>
>> Dear Johnny:
>>
>> Your email ended up in my spam filter.  As a result I didn't get to it
>> until now.
>>
>> Let me explain something to you.  I put watermarks on my photos because I
>> sell them.  I'm sure you can understand selling, especially if you really DO
>> run a printing company.  And if you make and sell prints of persons and/or
>> property, then you should know that releases are only required under very
>> specific conditions; conditions which are not met by property displayed for
>> the express purpose of being viewed.  This is the law: "as long as a
>> photograph of private property is taken while the photographer is on public
>> property or on property that is accessible by the public then it is
>> permissible to publish that photograph without permission from the owner of
>> the property."
>>
>> There are several more issues you should be aware of
>>
>>    - property per se, has no legal right to privacy.
>>    - publishing of a photograph of property that is in public view is
>>    protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
>>    - a photograph, drawing or other representation of publicly displayed
>>    property is the intellectual property of the creator of the 
>> representation.
>>    - releases are appropriate for persons or groups of persons.
>>    - releases are not required for publicly displayed property that
>>    cannot be identified or otherwise connected with the owner of the 
>> property.
>>
>> So, the photo stays right where it is.  The original of the photograph is
>> my intellectual property.  It was made using my equipment, my skill and my
>> time.
>>
>> If this is not clear to you, I suggest you consult an attorney and have
[ratpack] Re: [ratpack] Re: [elky] OT: An interesting email exchange

Other related posts:
