From: "P. J. Alling"
How is copyrighting a picture like daring someone to hit you? How is
seeking redress for damages entrapment as you seem to be suggesting? I
suggested that while it might not be a good source of reliable source of
income it would be poetic if you /could/ derive income from it. Does
everything have to spelled out in triplicate?
In no particular order:
PJA > Does everything have to spelled out in triplicate?
Quadruplicate? Quintuplicate? ... Tetracontakaienneate?
How many bites off the apple does it take for you to stop attributing
your own pre-conceived notions to me and argue with what I actually write?
Whatever. I ain't doing nothing else anyway, and this is marginally more
amusing than computer solitaire.
PJA > How is copyrighting a picture like daring someone to hit you?
Never said it was.
The idea of deliberately *leaving the watermark off* on-line images in
hopes that it will encourage someone to infringe your copyright so that
you can turn around and sue them *AFTER* they have infringed your
copyright does not seem like it would produce a reliable income stream
from the images.
Read that again.
Let me try to simplify my position for you.
You're better off not having your copyright infringed, than you are
encouraging someone to infringe your copyright so you can sue them.
If you are infringed, you should take appropriate steps to seek remedy &
compensation. Sitting around hoping for the chance to sue someone isn't
a business plan.
Another contributor likened the idea of *leaving the watermark off* ...
so you can sue later ... to diving in front of cars in order to sue the
driver.
Well, yeah, I guess ...
You responded with the idea that it was like minding your own business
in the crosswalk and the driver intentionally running you down.
It's not my analogy.
But in the context of the analogy, it's more akin to standing in the
crosswalk screaming at traffic than it is to either deliberate insurance
fraud or innocently getting run down by reckless drivers.
It's not like any of them. But I think my version of the analogy is
closer to reality.
PJA > How is seeking redress for damages entrapment as you seem to be
suggesting?
And there's the nub. I never have suggested that it is entrapment.
I said that deliberately seeking to put yourself into situations where
you could sue scofflaws for copyright infringement does not seem like a
workable plan for deriving revenue from your images.
I don't care whether it's entrapment [your word] or not. I just don't
think you're going to make any money doing it.
I favor seeking redress when necessary.
I do not favor deliberately setting out to *make* seeking redress
necessary, and I do not see a viable income producing strategy in doing
so. If that's your plan, go for it, but Return on Investment looks
mighty thin to me.
PJA > I suggested that while it might not be a good source of reliable
PJA > source of income it would be poetic if you /could/ derive income
from it.
No argument there. Never have argued against poetic justice. I love
poetic justice.
But *Schadenfreude* is not a business plan.
--
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.
