The Plantation Foundation is suing the photographer for making and selling Fine Art prints as a commercial use in the court dedicated to copyright claims as a copyright infringement.. The law is being stretched beyond all recognition. The photographer is selling them for prices ranging from $2500 to $4000 depending on size. I don't think you could make a case that he's churning out prints on his Epson printer. He's selling Fine Art Prints for _Really_ Fine Art Prices. Hell at those prices if he's selling more than one a month, no matter what his reputation, I'd be astounded.
graywolf wrote: > I did not say anything about fine art prints. Commercial use is not fine art > use. However selling hundreds of copies printed on your trusty Epson probably > is > commercial use; and I am pretty dam sure selling thousands of litho prints is > no > matter how artsy the image is. You keep putting specific stuff in when it is > pretty clear I am talking generalities. > > You read something that is not in anyway definitive and think you know all > about > that particular case. I would think, myself, that a university's attorneys > would > be better than average and might just know what they are doing. I am not > qualified to make a legal decision on a case I have not read, wouldn't be > even > if I was a lawyer. > > Not being clairvoyant I have no idea what the attorneys in that particular > case > are doing, they may be wrong, then again they may be crafty as heck. You of > course have read their minds and know all, so I will do as I intended and > shut > the eff up. > > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> 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.
