Re: Goth Weekend Photos (Originally Taken For The Whitby Gazette & Sexy Sunday Website)


"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dm4qt2$6bb$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3uluh5F1150p7U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> She didn't give a fake email address. She asked for a digital copy, which
>> she has now received.
>
> Aftere accusing PeeBee of not sending anyhting pity she sent him the
> wrong email address, but I guess you've decided that's his fault but is
> that
> an ethical or legal judgement.

She made a mistake, and has admitted it and apologised for it.
What's your point?

>
>> No-one, at any point, apart from you, has suggested that any phtographer,
>> or anyone else, should provide free hard copies to anyone.
> And if they don't provided free hard copies to those that want/request
> copies
> of even their own pictures that they posed for, what are they to do.

What do you mean, "what are they to do"? This isn't a difficult question,
Dave. If they're putting photos on the web, the making a digital copy
available to those in the photos is easy. Providing hard copies is entirely
unnecessary, and no-one apart from you has an issue with this.

>> It doesn't cost anything to make that specific digital copy available.
> Yes it does, it takes time and effort.

No it doesn't; if the images are online already, anyone who wants one can
download one, wiht no effort or time cost to the photographer.

>
>> And as I've already explainewd several times, if they weren't already
>> being made available digitally, there wouldbn't actually be an issue in
>> the first place.
> So how would a person acuire and image that's not been made available ?

They wouldn't. And it wouldn't be an issue, because the people in question
wouldn't be asking for a copy if they photos weren't online anyway.

>> You've missed the point. I didn't ask "Is he allowed to put them online",
>> I said "he doesn't _have_ to put them online".
> No he does

No dave, he doesn't. He puts them online because he wants to, because it's
his hobby. He doesn't _have_ to.

he also does have to send them to anyone that asks including
> those in the pictures/images .

No, he doesn't, although if the images are available to the public, it would
be rude not to allow the subject a copy.

>>In other words, if he doesn't want to pay to make them publically
>>available, he doesn't have to, and no-one will complain about that.
> Those that request copies or to see what he actually took might complain
> at not being able to see what he took, especially if they can't remember
> the
> incident taking place, but he has the right not to show them of course,
> but I wouldn't call that ethical although you probably would.

But if the photos weren't being made available online in the first place,
no-one would have been requesting images, would they?

>> And indeed it has *** all to do with you./ And yet you're still
>> discussing it. Do you somehow have more of a right to express your
>> opinion about it than I do?
>
> No,

Then stop with the ridiculous newbie mewling about how I'm trying to stop
people from doing things, Dave.
I'm _discussing_ it. I'm expressing my opinion, just as you are.

H


.