Take a picture of someones house from the public street and sell
it to an ad agency who puts it up on billboards all over the
country, uses it in a magazine ad campaign, and otherwise
indicates there is money involved. The owner will have a hundred
lawyers offering to sue you for him for a percentage of the
take. I hope you have high limit liability insurance 'cause he
is going to win.
Peter Alling wrote:
>
> There is no such doctrine as long as you don't misrepresent what
> the photograph shows then there is nothing the property owner can
> do about you if you publish a photo of their property taken from a
> public venue.
>
> At 07:36 PM 7/16/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >In the US it is a matter of is the picture in the public
> >interest or not. Public interest is photojournalistic, etc.
> >Private interested is commercial. The property owner has the
> >right to exploit his property and to prevent others from
> >doing so.
--
Tom "Graywolf" Rittenhouse
Graywolf Photo, Charlotte, NC, USA
------------------------------------------
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
