they wouldn't be copyright violations. They might be violations of something, but it's not copyright.
-- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15 August 2005 21:49 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights > > Go to NYC and photograph the NY Stock Exchange building and > attempt to use the image for commercial purposes without > their express written permission. > Let me know the results. > > Research what brand of makeup some well known cosmetics model > uses. Take a photo of her face at it's best in public. Put it > together in a knock 'um dead ad campaign for the manufacturer > of that makeup. Let me know how you make out. > > Regards, > Bob... > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to > obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the > smallest possible amount of hissing." > - Jean-Baptiste Colbert, > minister of finance to French King Louis XIV > > From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> 2. You have a right to make money from any such > >> photograph, provided the > >> act does not violate a copyright. Some people's images and some > >> buildings are copywritten! > > > > Copywritten? > > > > A photograph is not a copy of either a building or a person, > > consequently a photograph of a building or a person wouldn't (or > > shouldn't) violate copyright. > > > > >
