Tom, You're wrong. Go talk to your lawyer. The suits would have
no standing. No judge would allow it into court since it would be
a waste of his time.
At 03:57 AM 7/17/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>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 .
-
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 .
