Pulitzer Prize Fire Photo?

sitemistic said:
Because most aren't potential Pulitzer contenders.
Click to expand...

dude, she made onto nightly news with brian williams for her photo.. how much more copyright protection does she need?
 
You miss the point. It's small so it can't be easily reproduced at high quality by anyone. The copyright issue is loosing control of the reproduction rights, not loosing the ownership or failing to get paid a licensing fee.

If you don't like that answer, you'll have to come up with your own. That's all I can think of.

/T
 
Copyright law in the States automatically applies when you press the shutter release or put ink/paint to paper. Internet (with respect to copyright) is considered to be a huge book. Anything original you publish is automatically copyrighted by you and no amount of linking, republishing or syndication will take that copyright away. Granted, seeking a specific copyright is best for important works, but the automatic one always applies.
 
sitemistic said:
Of course, if somebody violates your copyright, you have to defend it, and that takes deep pockets for legal fees and years of litigation. Owning it and maintaining control of it are too very different things.
Click to expand...


This is quite to the point, sitemistic, which is very simple. If you put a large copy of your photo on line, anyone can take it and print themselves up a nice big picture. If you want to sell it, you would be ill advised to do that. You still own your copyright in the picture, but you no longer control distribution. A pretty simple point, and the reason most valuable photos are either 1) not displayed online at all, 2) are displayed in only a small size, or 3) are displayed with an obscruing copyright tag.

/T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom