I pose a question or two, What ever happened to the fact that the photographer holds the original negatives and can have the prints dated at the time of developing, or what about a digital camera with the time/date stamped on the image (and my ignorance may be showing here as I am not familiar with digital yet). It seems to me that something has to be said in favor of possessing the original negatives. Unless "possession is 9/10ths of the law" is another US only myth. My concern is that I'm only beginning to get back to the web after a short lapse, and these legal concerns are making me wonder if the problems would be worth any of my hard work. Next to God and my children (no religious input necessary) my photography is my life, my passion. My only hope at this point is that my photographs are so -uninspiring- that no one would want to use them! : - ( More comments, please! Shyrell Melara Family Photography http://yedtel.net/~jmelara On Thu, 01 May 2003 10:52:20 -0400 Guy Glorieux <guy.glorieux@sympatico.ca> writes: > This occurred several years ago in the province of Quebec in a case > involving Gilbert Duclos on the issue of photography and privacy. > The case was ultimately lost by Duclos and street photography received > a severe blow in Quebec. Once all costs were accounted for, Duclos > himself lost a few $,000. However, he got tremendous publicity > through the case and the cost/benefit ultimately turned very favorable to > him, despite the unfavorable odds initially... > > Is there anybody out there with a strong stomach and deep pockets > prepared to take the risk of testing the strength of "intellectual > property" protection for photographers posting their work on the > web? > > Guy
