>You are very wrong! I suggest you do as you propose, then post it,
i.e. on
>the web. You will find out very quickly about copyrights, trademarks
and
>patent infringement. "Copy" is defined extensively, including "taking
a
>picture". Good luck and request an E-mail address from San Quentin or
>Leavenworth.
>
Uh, I think you're stretching things quite a bit. This doesn't have
anything to do with patents and trademarks, since I've worked here at
the PTO for 18 years now. This has to do with copyrights, and the law
says nothing that I know of about "copying" being equal to "taking a
picture," unless the original artwork was a photograph. I suggest you
post a case citation to support your position.
I still believe that taking a picture of a building does not violate
the architect's copyright. If I built a duplicate building, then I
would be infringing his copyright, but a photograph is not a building.
Be seeing you.
Dirk Wright
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|