Hi John yes, the interesting point of the discussion was, whether a photo can be Art or not because it simple requires a click. I think it was the first time, a judge decided for Art. That the photographer owned the right on the photo, was already clear. If you make photos for someone, you have a working contract so the photographers usually never give away the negatives. You don't have the right to publish photos of someone without permission, not even showing them around.
That Poster of Bob Marley was *very* popular in the around 1975, a lot of my friends had it, so they made a lot of money with it, they must have produced them in thousands. Markus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- From: John Forbes Subject: Re: Copyright on photos? First, they upheld the general principle that the photographer owned the copyright to the picture. Second, they attempted to put a commercial valuation on the particular picture, and the use to which it was put. No doubt the value would have been greater if the picture had been used on the front page of a mass-circulation newspaper, and less if it had been used in a parish magazine.
