scott schrieb:
> Can you really make something that is visible to the public and then sue 
> them for taking photos of it?  That seems bizarre.  *IMO* if you put 
> something on display for the public to see you have no right to stop 
> people taking photos and doing what they want with those photos.

Well, it's not /that/ far-fetched: You're carrying your face around all 
day in public, too - still, if anybody wants to publish a photograph of 
that particular face taken in public, strictly they'd still need your 
agreement.

> Oh I know they are, but *IMO* if you give something to the public you 
> shouldn't expect to be able to keep control of it after that.  I mean if 
> you publically broadcast *for free* to the whole population some TV 
> show, doesn't it seem a bit wrong that two weeks later you then go and 
> try to sue someone for making a copy?

Now, imagine a simger-songwriter, doing a beneficial puplic gig 
somewhere. Would that entitle people to just copy his songs and not pay 
him any royalties?

Also note that although TV stations don't charge the public for their 
broadcasts, they do charge for it in a sense: They get their money from 
companies advertising in the breaks and between the shows. So they're 
not really giving away stuff for free - they're making money out of it.

Post a reply to this message