Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/02/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think, in this case, it was more a of cavalier disregard for any rules. I suspect that the sense of historicity, that was felt in this last election, made more people throw caution to the wind than normally. Of course, there is the continuous generational bugbear where the previous agreements don't apply, or are seen as at least hampering the new realities. sd On Feb 22, 2009, at 12:23 PM, R. Clayton McKee wrote: > Quoth the Slobodan Dimitrov : > >> money changing hands as an accommodation over the >> perceived >> infringement usually solves most problems. It's rarely the principle >> of the thing. > > With all due respect, this is a question of commercial law. Ninety- > nine percent of the time, money changing hands pretty much IS the > principle of the thing. > > Yes, of course there are cases where an infringer is an entity to > whom an artist wouldn't license work for any amount of money, but > most infringements are a user deciding they're not willing to pay the > fee if they don't have to, and most legal actions are done to > convince them that they DO have to. > > > > > > -- > > > R. Clayton McKee http://www.rcmckee.com > Photojournalist rcmckee@rcmckee.com > P O Box 571900 voice/fax 713/783-3502 > Houston, TX 77257-1900 cell phone # on request > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information