Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

filmscanners: Re: taking pictures (was: OT more copyright questions



I REALLY hate to get back into this, because I'm not a lawyer (my brother
and daughter are), BUT:

Taking pictures with flash in a public museum is prohibited. That makes
sense, because the extra-bright light of a flashbulb or strobe will damage
the paintings. It will NOT damage a sculpture on the museum grounds, unless
you take about 500-million of them--and who's got that kind of money or
patience?

As an artist, I can go anywhere I want to and paint any dammed thing I want
to under 1st Ammendment guarantees, as long as I can see it and I don't
block traffic. And I can sell the painting, too, if anybody cares to buy it.
Then why can't a photographer photograph it, and sell the photo? So
forbiding this is an arrogant case of a "copyright" being misused, IMHO.

Now if someone with no taste and no brains were to use either the painting
or the photo for an advertisement, as someone suggested before, this could
be held as an implied "endorsement" in a court of law and a violation of
several things; and the case would probably--and rightfully--be found
against the advertiser. Copyright *should* not be one of the arguments. A
copyright is for the protection of the originating author, artist, or
whomever, against theft and/or misuse and abuse. Any other use of a
copyright is just plain wrong.

That's my additional "2-cents worth" (guess I'm up to about a dime on this
subject now, aren't I?). :-)

Best regards--LRA


-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.