Martin Belam wrote:
David, I understand that DRM costs money and is never 100% effective,
and I understand that it was a bit rubbish when the music industry
made me pay again for downloads of music by dead people that I'd
already purchased once on vinyl and then once again on CD.
And I'm hearing a lot about your freedom.
But at the moment I enjoy my freedom to be able to publish a picture
of my daughter in public on the Internet so that my family, colleagues
and friends can see it easily, but also express my choice alongside it
that the photograph belongs to me and it is not be used without my
knowledge or consent on an advert. I genuinely don't understand why
you think forcibly taking that freedom away from me in a complete
abolition of copyright enhances society.
What you are talking about is the removing the freedom of others.
I suspect you can trust your family, friends etc to respect your wishes,
and you can limit the distribution through trust.
If it is not public, then no-one has access to use it in an advert.
You could expect the public to respect your privacy and wishes.
Images of children can be sourced for advertising without having to
resort to using private images.
You can not prevent yourself been photographed in a public place.
Do you still have copyright to the image or is that the photographer ?
Once the picture has been used in an advert, copyright can not restore
your privacy.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
