frank theriault wrote:ght.
> (snip, snip, snip)
>
> I continue to think that the Smithsonian really shouldn't care if someone,
> especially the lovely Ann, "published" a submitted photo on PUG. Now, if
> she had it published in National Geographic, that might be different. I
> guess that what I'm trying in my blunderheaded way to say is: one really
> should look at the intent of the rule. I'm guessing that (as someone said
> previously), it has more to do with copyright considerations than anything
> else. My guess is that they really don't care about PUG, or anyone's
> personal homepage. But, OTOH, it really matters not what I think, does it?
> <vbg>
>
> cheers,
> frank
aw shucks - lovely, gee, see ann blush :)
(If I'd been published in the National Geographic I wouldn't be hanging out with
you low lifes:) )
Anyway, I wrote the email just now - will see what I get back --
here is what I said:
>>>> (subject line ;
definition of "Previously published" needs clarification"
"I hope I can get an answer to this -- to me ,it
was unclear in the specs for the Photo contest.
Can a photo that is on one's home page on the web be entered (as long as it
has never appeared in print) ?
Is a photo exhibited in a gallery, on or off line,
which has NOT been sold , eligible (as long
as it has never appeared in print?)
I sure don't want to enter something that I'm
especially proud of and have it rejected
because I also had it on my home page.
A friend posed this question to you in email and
told me he had gotten two opposing
opinions.
so... Help!
Thanks!"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Will let you all know what i get in reply
annsan
