OT: Photographer Being Sued

[P. J. Alling]

Look at the photograph. I don't believe the report entirely, but I did 
look at every report I could find, (all pretty much identical). The 
attorneys involved do know better, what they are engaged in is called 
gaming the system, the law is whatever you can get a judge to agree to. 
There's also the monetary consideration, if the Photographer can be 
found to be in violation of a copyright its a civil penalty the 
Plantation will get the money, in trespass, it's criminal and the Court 
will get the money and the Plantation only gets recompensed for actual 
damages, which they probably can't prove, since there are none.

graywolf wrote:
> Do we know that? That is what the reporter said, but I would think the attorneys 
> involved would know better. Just as some here seem to confuse copyright and 
> property rights, so do reporters, sigh! That is the problem with trying an issue 
> via news reports, and why hearsay is not given much weight as evidence.
>
> So it appears that we are pretty much in agreement, only I did not consider the 
> report as accurate as you seem to have.
>
>
> P. J. Alling wrote:
>   
>> You're right it isn't a copyright or trademark issue, it is a property 
>> rights/trespass issue, however the lawyers for the Plantation decided to 
>> sue the photographer for copyright infringement, for which they clearly 
>> have no standing.
>>     
>
>   


-- 
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.