View Single Post
Old 11-15-2011, 08:12 AM   #90
HarryT
eBook Enthusiast
HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
HarryT's Avatar
 
Posts: 85,556
Karma: 93383099
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
You don't have the right to take a photograph of the Dalek that you purchased without BBC's permission. The law isn't even slightly ambiguous about this.
That would be like saying that you don't have the right to photograph anybody wearing clothes, anybody driving a car, any house, any item of furniture, etc, etc. All those are copyrighted designs; the list is endless. A photograph of an object is not a copy of an object; copyright law does not apply. It's different for "unique" objects like paintings, statues, etc, which is what Paul was referring to. They are unique objects where the image IS the object, if you like. Clothes, cars, furniture, (yes, and Daleks too) are not unique objects - there are lots of them, and a photograph of any one of them is not violating anyone's rights. Until or unless you can point me to a legal ruling which states that using a photograph of a mass-produced object for non-commercial purposes is a breach of copyright, this is what I will continue to believe.

Last edited by HarryT; 11-15-2011 at 08:18 AM.
HarryT is offline   Reply With Quote