But you don't have a fair right to it either.

Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of a
leg to stand on.
Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun of
it.

jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
upsetting to you than it is to me.

curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they pull
the images before it gets into a bum fight.



"Joseph Testagrose" wrote in message
...
People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
wrote:

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
method they use to access the photo.