At 06:58 PM 6/16/2002 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 6/16/02 5:34:09 PM EST, azinn@netbox.com writes: > >> I wanted to >> hear that a simple claim of ownership would give protection instead of >> having to create a fine print contract. > >Situation 1) Simple ownership doesn't give any protection. If I sell a >picture to someone I still own the copyright. >Situation 2) Simple ownership of something that doesn't have a copyright >gives you the right to sell an image of the item. But there are no legal >restraints from anyone lifting a copy from that image without a contract or >the publisher copyrighting the whole magazineetc.. > > All, OK lets get down to real cases. I have this picture on my web page of my cousin Bob: http://www.panoramacamera.us/cousinbob.jpg Anyone can lift the 72DPI file of it for fair use. Others are subject to conventional law suits regarding theft of property. I am offering for sale a version of the picture suitable for printing - say a 250 DPI TIF. A contract declaring whatever restrictions I want to put on the use of the picture would then be agreed upon by the buyer and seller. Violation of the contract would be dealt with conventionally. This seems to be typical for this kind of business. Why wouldn't stating on the web page or where ever "All rights reserved," or some such, have sufficient legal merit if it clearly means using the 72DPI web page picture other than fair use is restricted? Like printed documents a web page is copyrighted intellectual property. AZ Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera. http://www.panoramacamera.us or keyword.com lookaround
