[ratpack] Re: [elky] OT: An interesting email exchange
- From: thanks2frank@xxxxxxxxx
- To: ratpack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 17:39:14 +0000
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Knight <carpixguy@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 11:33:24
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 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:
