Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Profit may a factor in determining the punishment for copyright infringement, but it doesn't determine someone's guilt or otherwise in committing the infringing act.
|
Considering your previous posts (emphasis mine), I find you new position on the subject a little odd:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
A copy of a book is a book; a photograph of a Dalek is not a Dalek. The BBC certainly have the right to license who can build Daleks, but they don't have the right to say to someone who perfectly legally owns a Dalek, "you can't take a photograph of it and use the photograph for non-commercial purposes."
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
You may be right, Greg, although I find it exceedingly odd that the law can prevent someone from using a photograph of their own property for a non-commercial purpose, but until the BBC request me to stop using the picture I shall assume that I am right and continue to use it.
|