Does the word "photocopy" give you any ideas. Lots of legal issues there.
In many cases it is the intellectual rights that are being protected from
copying, not just the original object. So the Opera House in Sydney, being
quite unique, is an intellectual property.
It still seems some are in it just to make a few more bucks ($) and are
hurting themselves more in bad publicity than they are gaining for the sake
of a postcard, IMO
Gregg
Dirk Wright wrote:
> I took a brief look at US copyright law and I'm not convinced that
> taking a picture of an object that is copyrighted is a violation of
> that right. Copyright means that you can't copy the object. A
> photograph is not a copy of any three dimensional object. I don't see
> the basis for any of this. I will continue to investigate however......
>
> 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|