On 18 Jun 2005 at 11:43, William Robb wrote: > The law, in this instance is not about intent, it's about actions. > And yes, we are a really easy target to take potshots at, so we are > exceptionally careful. > We use customers photos from time to time, with written permission. > Verbal agreements don't stand up well if the customer changes their mind > after the fact.
I don't understand this at all. Why should the copy/print station owners be the discretionary party, they can't possibly have a clue of the ownership of a digital image devoid of ownership details. Why not force customers to sign a document which certifies that they are the copyright holder or that they have the express permission of the copyright holder to make a print. Surely this would later allow the copyright owners sue the deceitful customers? It sounds to me just typical of society today, the doer of the deed blames everyone but themselves and the hardly done by blames the wrong entity. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
