Which would be true, except the photographer who can sell an image for $4000.00 is selling as much or more on his or her name as the actual subject matter. I doubt that the Plantation Foundation, would be able to sell prints for such commanding prices without getting as well respected an artist to make the photograph and prints, and they'll have a hard time doing that given their current actions. But that's still beside the point. We aren't talking about any property rights that they can enforce. What the photographer in question did which is enforceable is trespass, unless the scene he photographed was visible from public property. I'm beginning to suspect might be the case, since the Plantation Foundation , is pursuing a course that seems unlikely to gain them the redress they seek. (Don't you just like the way "Plantation Foundation" rolls of the tongue?)
Bob Blakely wrote: > And now, should the foundation decide to change their mind at a future date, > photograph and sell nearly identical photos, their value is lessened because > a similar photograph is already out there. > > Regards, > Bob... > -------------------------------------------------------- > "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." > -Jean Luc Godard > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rebekah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> I think software copying is entirely different - if I were to copy >> some software and give it to you, the company that made it would lose >> money because you didn't purchase it from them. >> > . > > > -- 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.
