I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent
in making the planet look like neutron bombs've
been deployed on a global scale but any change
in the law which would make you the copyright
holder of a photograph may well be susceptible
to similar claims where property is concerned.

And this principle would apply equally to the
Harewood or Chatsworth Estates as to a private
residence in a terrace in Ealing. It'd have to.

What the papparazzi debate comes down to is
a confusion on the part of proprietors and editors
as to where readers' interests and the public
interest diverge. The press keep maintaing they
are fit to regulate themselves in the same way
as kids with Prader Willi syndrome insist they'll
stop eating when they're full.

If the papers didn't buy the photo's in question
there wouldn't be any issue over copyright law.

And as readers tend to show a distinct brand
loyalty to their chosen title/s, many of which
are delivered, it's always the fickle few that flit
from fief to fief like Floridans these "scoops"
are aimed at--as canteen communal papers
are only ever bought once.

The law would either be so clunky and full of
clauses and exceptions as to be largely
incomprehensible or anybody in a grumpy
mood that could be recognised in the crowd
at, say, Glastonbury festival would be able to
block publication by claiming copyright.

Just because Joe Public struggles to take 2
shots in a row without red-eye and the degree-
level chemistry of the Victorian-era pioneers
has become something for the purists and
enthusiasts, doesn't mean there isn't a strong
element of composition in many photo's.

As such, there is still an art to photography
that there isn't to, say, walking and breathing
at the same time whilst one is bedding a
celebrity.

And I don't mean coaxing willing people into a
group hug by "composition"--as the work is
then generally done by auto-focus software.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

"FCS"  wrote in message 
news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent

You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright 
on something belonging to a photo.
Regards   Mike.

On Apr 22, 6:01 pm, "Mike Cawood, HND BIT"  wrote:
> "FCS"  wrote in message
>
> news:1176777844.536753.248930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I know Google have seemed to be quite diligent
>
> You could also write 'copyright on photos' - your heading implies copyright
> on something belonging to a photo.
> Regards   Mike.

I can write what I like! Last time I checked photo'
was still an abbreviation of photograph; whereas
photo is a combining prefix pertaining to light and
derived from classical-era greek.

cf. photophobic, photochromatic, photogenic, &c.

I also drink in pub's and catch 'buses home. Thanks
though.

Though given th[e sometimes strange len]gths that
print-sect[or journalists have go]ne to in order to be
avant-gra[de and qua]rky in the past I should've
thought you co[uld've co]-operated to synthesise the
only possible genuine meaning.

I don't suppose an amplifying note on the issues
surrounding copyright CCTV stills from, say, grocers'
shops - which are technically private premises - as
opposed to photo's taken in public would be of any
relevance to any discussion of legal implications?

I can only account for what I meant to imply, not
for what you may or may not have inferred. But, as
I say, thanks though.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--