[ratpack] Re: [elky] OT: An interesting email exchange
- From: Larry Knight <carpixguy@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: ratpack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 11:33:24 -0600
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 him
> or her explain the law to you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ray the Rat
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Redline LV <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If I try and take a pic off your site of my car it has a watermark over
>> it. I dont need prints of it as I own my own printing company. I dont
>> inderstand why I have to pay for a pic of my car. If so pleas take it off as
>> I didnt sign any release form for you to use my car on your site. Thank you
>> for your understanding.
>>
>> Johnny
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/9/2010 12:26 PM, Ray The Rat wrote:
>>
>>> Hi. You can have the copy on my website just by saving the image to your
>>> hard drive. But since I try to supplement a fixed income with photography,
>>> I ask a small amount for my photos. I ask $10 for the original or an 8x10
>>> print and $20 for an 11x14.
>>> Let me know what format you keep the photos in and we'll see what we can
>>> work out. K?
>>>
>>> RtR
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
