You should read the NY Times article I posted, selling Art prints is not a commercial purpose under US law. Nor is it a violation of copyright. The case is being tried under the wrong law in the wrong court for a crime that hasn't been committed.
graywolf wrote: > You guys are still confusing the right to take the photo, and the right to > use > the photo commercially. They are entirely different issues, as I have said > before. > > John Sessoms wrote: > >> From: Adam Maas >> >> >>> This is a very grey area. If your Blazer is parked in a public area >>> when the picture was taken, you have no standing to sue. If it was on >>> private property, things get murky (unless the photographer was also >>> on the same private property, at which point the question becomes one >>> of straight trespass). >>> >>> -Adam >>> >> If it's parked on private property, but visible from the street or other >> public right of way, it's still fair game. >> >> That plantation is open as a tourist attraction, and is "public use". >> >> > > -- 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.
