On 28 Apr 2002 at 23:01, Mishka wrote: > Rob, > See, you are assuming that there's an a priori knowledge of who is the owner an > who infringes. Although it is often true in case of software, books and music, I > think it is more vague in case of photographs. There're no negatives, just two > (almost) identical image files. If I am an abuser, I may argue just as well that > *you* have tampered with *my* identification <g> Oh well, I am not a lawyer. > Lucky for me.
As you may have seen in my initial response to Bill, if there were any argument I would simply present the series of images into which the pilfered image fits, I rarely shoot a single image of any one scene fortunately. Otherwise I agree it's difficult to prove who the owner is but there is always a way :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
