In a message dated 3/2/2008 2:11:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Really? Who holds the copyright on such a pic? If you argue for no contract then the situation is easy to deal with. The person who took the picture holds the copyright thus the camera owner can't upload to wikipedia and any such image should be deleted. However in your email dated 2 Mar 2008 08:14 you described such deletions as "ridiculous behaviour" which means you must think there is some form of valid implied contract in such an action. Perhaps there is as I said I don't know but it is an issue of contract law.
Please point to some case, in contract law, where a random stranger, sued the person they were taking a picture of, because they didn't get
permission or
whatever you're saying.
As I said no established case law. That doesn't mean there isn't law in this area just makes it hard to be sure what it is.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- When I hire someone to work in my studio and take pictures of children, the employee does not hold the copyright to such work, the owner of the studio does. When you are offered a *position* even at no pay, and you agree, you are implicitely and voluntarily giving up your right to claim the results of that work later.
If there is no established case law, then why are you arguing that it's the law? It's your interpretation of the law. And that's all it is. Our policy however is not based on your particular interpretation, but rather on the consensus, addressing directly, and in particular, each issue as it arises. Claiming to hold an argument of the high-horse position, might dissuade those easily misled, but it doesn't work on people who don't agree with an appeal to authority.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)