As for the tree, I am assuming you are talking about the bare tree in the R/H corner, that would be personal preference, thanks for your opinion.
As for the copyright on the photo, this is another one taken from my web page, I put the copyright there for a reason, just way to easy to take and use intellectual property these days, one more thing I didn't copyright the house, I made note of my copyright to the PHOTO which came into effect the moment I snapped the shutter, whether the owner of the home likes it or not I still own the copyright to THAT photo, now selling it could make a difference if the owner was adverse to having that done, in this case two thing, first I know the owner and he has a copy hanging in the Mill which is a bed and breakfast now, and secondly this is an historic building which I believe would set a precedence to such photos.
Thanks again
Terry
----- Original Message ----- From: "trevor cunningham" <tr_cunningham@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: PF Galleries on 29 JAN 05
Terry L. Mair - Johnson Mill i would have positioned myself so that darned tree wasn't in the image...i also would not have placed my copyright on the image itself...is that legal in this case? to take a picture of someone's house and copyright it? there seems to have been some discussion on the topic (it was a lengthy one at that)
=====
"The optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it's true" - J Robert Oppenheimer
http://www.geocities.com/tr_cunningham
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
