> My suggestion is that you don't post images you don't want
re-distributed in a public place.
Sounds fun for all those artists with showreels
David Tomlinson wrote:
Martin Belam wrote:
I suspect you can trust your family, friends etc to respect your
wishes, and you can limit the distribution through trust.
Images of children can be sourced for advertising without having to
resort to using private images.
So your basic answer is that in a world without copyright, instead of
me being allowed to say "Hey, I know you *could* just download this
straight off the internet and reuse it however you want, but I'd
really rather you didn't", the onus is instead on me to personally
vouch for the distribution of my photos on a person-by-person basis
and just hope for the best from anyone I don't know who wants a
picture of a child?
My answer is that only commercial interests, would respect your
copyright.
My suggestion is that you don't post images you don't want
re-distributed in a public place.
Personal items could be covered by privacy. I don't see it useful in
the context of copyright.
For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject
anymore.
I suggest personal material e.g a private letter, can substitute for
the purposes of the debate.
-
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]/
-
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]/
