Dan, A couple of questions, rhetorical as they might be: What would you want from this person? Credit for the image they are using of yours within their derivative artwork? Some monetary compensation, if they should ever sell the work? To soil their reputation to the point that any credibility within their artistic community is destroyed? For them to learn a lesson of giving credit where credit is due? For someone to take their artwork and give them no credit for it? For you to take their artwork and sell it as yours? I've had people take ideas of mine and exploit them for their own projects, but I received the credit for the ideas from the people who counted. After I cooled down a bit I asked myself the questions I outlined above and figured out for myself what would satisfy me. Rick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan C" <leicaman@sympatico.ca> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 9:43 AM Subject: Re: copyright violation > I don't think I would have any problem proving that I am the copyright > holder. If it ever got to the point where we were standing in front of a > judge in a court of law (North American Law, not sure about Turkish), I > think the case wouldn't last more than 2 minutes. > > The problem is whether or not it is worth the trouble and expense of > getting to that point. > > By the way, I have found a photo of his that looks very similar to another > photographer's. I've notified that photographer, but haven't received any > word back from him. > > dan c. > > At 10:12 AM 02-05-03 -0400, shyrell_lynn@juno.com wrote: > >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 > > > > > > >
