I don't see how this guy making money off of the photographs could be considered "damages". They certainly didn't lose any money just because he made some - from what I can tell the clause on the property said 'no photographs for commercial gain' - not, 'if you make some money, you have to share'. And trespassing is illegal, but did he 'damage' anything? I really think the only thing they can do is point their finger and file a police report for trespassing. I'll certainly be watching the outcome of this case closely because I just went to a nearby plantation and photographed just about everything there, although I really doubt I'll be selling my pictures for any price, let alone a few grand.
rg2 On 10/8/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:10:50AM -0400, graywolf wrote: > > > > The issue with copyrights, trademarks, and patents is that they have been > > ordained as property by law thus extending the same property rights to > > them. And > > because of that they have to be registered with the government before the > > courts > > will hear the case. > > That is incorrect. But the copyright must be registered before the copyright > violation can be prosecuted as a criminal (as opposed to civil) offence, and > if the copyright is not registered you can only be awarded actual (rather than > punitive) damages. > > > -- > 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. > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- 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.
