What worries me more than anything, is the assumption that you can get redress for other wrongs under copyright law. As a copyright case this should have been filed in the circular file already. It should have never gotten to a docket. As a trespass case it should be in another court, (and yes you can charge trespass after the fact, you just need some proof, if there was no way for the photo to have been made any other way that should be proof enough to make the accusation anyway).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 10/7/2007 1:30:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Here you go, read the docket! > > http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-scdce/case_no-2:2007cv03264/case_id-153 > 215/ > > ============= > It's not clear if he was on the property when he photographed it. If he > wasn't, then no problem. If someone's property is visible from a public > place > then it wouldn't be trespass and he could photograph it. > > As far as copyright goes, I think a building has to be officially > trademarked before that can be brought into it. > > And frank might know, but doesn't tresspass have to be dealt with at the > time, not retroactively? > > Haven't we had threads about this sort of thing before? > > Marnie aka Doe <yawn> > > --------------------------------------------- > Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. > > > > > ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
