In a message dated 3/2/2008 5:14:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, scs@eskimo.com writes:
So what is "you are implicitly and voluntarily giving up your right"? That's just your interpretation, right? I don't think we'll ever know.>>
---------------------- That's right. Now you've got the hang of it.
Law, just like Wiki-policy is subject to interpretation, which is why case law is so important in the US at any rate. You never know in advance how something will go, even if you *think* you have an iron-clad situation.
It's my view, that a person voluntarily using your camera to take your picture, is your free employee. If anyone thinks that we're ever going to *know* whether any free-use image will be challenged, they are wrong. We can never know. We can create a policy for when to use them and when not, we can modify and expand it, but we are always going to be subject to the possibility of getting a "cease and desist" letter.
Which is not the end of the world. The main copyright issues, are not because an entity *violated* the copyright, but are when they were told, they fought it. If you comply with the letter, the matter is generally dropped *unless* the offended party can create a claim that you deprived them of some kind of substantial income.
Hardly likely in our case. 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)