From: "P. J. Alling"
On 11/25/2010 5:56 AM, Peter Loveday wrote:
>>> "Significant income from those who choose to violate"?
>>>
>>> Somehow, I just don't see chasing scofflaw copyright infringers as
>>> providing a reliable revenue stream from photography.
>>
>> But, it would be poetic.
>
> Perhaps, if one wants to lower themselves to the same level as the thief.
>
> I guess it's the 21st C equivalent of throwing oneself in front of a
> car, in order to sue.
>
> - Peter
>
>
You've got that backwards, if you mark your images as copyrighted, and
someone uses them illegally, then it's as if they aimed their car at you
walking in a crosswalk, and hit you. That is if your analogy holds up
at all.
More like stopping right in the middle of the crosswalk when the signal
light changes and daring anyone to run over you.
My original allusion was to a [faint, vague] suggestion that
photographers not watermark on-line images (registered copyright) in
order to encourage the likelihood of the images being infringed
... for the sole purpose that the photographer could then turn a profit
on the images from subsequent litigation over the infringement.
Copyright litigation as marketing strategy.
I favor copyright registration, watermarking, etc. But, I see it as
asset protection, not as a potential revenue stream. If your copyrights
are registered and your images are infringed there is potential monetary
compensation for your "loss".
But, it's not a reliable source of income.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
