Received: from  ([206.46.170.143])
 by fonix.org (wcSMTP v5.5.450.2)
 with SMTP id 736819984; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:05:22 +0000
Received: from BobDial ([67.248.207.169]) by out005.verizon.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.20 201-253-122-126-120-20021101) with ESMTP
          id 
          for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:05:16 -0600
Message-ID: 
From: "Bob Dial" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re:  INFRINGEMENT/Terrence
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:44:17 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out005.verizon.net from
[67.248.207.169] at Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:05:15 -0600


----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: Copyright INFRINGEMENT


> [fonix.photo]
>
> To All:
>
> I have been reading the thread on copyright issues and I want to offer
> another view..

Well said, and thanks for the additional input.  It helps explain why things
often change with the times as regards areas we may take for granted.

> for use only in the paper. The freelancers eventually won their case after
> a 5- to 6-year count battle that ended up in the US Supreme Court.
>

Somehow I missed that one entirely.  If carried at all here in the
Ark-La-Tex the story must have been played down and buried with
inconsequential blurbs.

> ..There is no way
> to tell (or track) how many ways and times and places that a freelance
> photo might appear somewhere on the internet after it hit our web site.
> Would the freelancer want a payment from us (the newspaper) every time it
> appeared in a new place? How could that be administered? We were left with
> no choice but to buy complete rights to photos.
>

> There is two sides to every story. We had some freelancers who refused to
> sign the new contract and we no longer were able use them. But for every
> photographer that didn't sign we had 10 that did sign.
>

Understanding a problem from the other guy's side of the fence may help put
such issues on the discussion table instead of just drawing lines in the
sand.  Those who have pertinent issues to the contrary can then usually work
something out, or go their separate ways without feeling they were mugged.


BobD
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5