Chris Reik wrote:
>Maybe I'm missing something here, but how the hell can you
>copyright a building? Think about it, it just doesn't make sense.
>Besides, any picture you take and develop is automatically
>copyrighted to yourself. So just thumb your nose at them and
>take their picture.
You can't. But the argument has been made in the past (Dirk Wright - I am
looking for the history) of a building in Chicago which a corporation owned
and has their name on it. A photograph was taken of part of the building,
without the corporation name in the photograph, then distribited. The
corporation threatened legal action if distribution did not cease, with
justification that the building was identifiable with the corporation which
had Intellectual Property rights, i.e. registered copyrights and
trademarks, etc. After about a week of moaning and groaning, distribution
stopped.
Dirk Wright: I did exagerate on San Quentin and Leavenworth, maybe it was
Sing Sing! Also, I can't name a single court case off-hand.
John Hudson: I agree.
All: Have a great weekend and a safe one. I am not what you call a super
patriot, but remember why we celebrate. I am going to attempt to photograph
some local neighborhood fireworks. I don't think there will be any
Intellectual Property rights violations involved unless my neighbor has a
few too many. CYA
________________
John Cwiklinski
< 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 >
|