Could be they are just looking for the publicity. P. J. Alling wrote: > 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. >>> >> . >> >> >> > >
-- 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.
