I just tried to post this but I think I was censored! I've suggested some
words rather than typed them complete, which may be more successful.
Possibly relevant: I vaguely remember reading an article a while ago about
artists and intellectual copyright, which discussed whether if their art
work was used in a way they felt was incompatible with their original
intentions they could take action even though they no longer owned it. I
seem to remember that it was thought they could. Does this ring any bells
with any-one else?
The case I'm discussing involves links such as 'fetal cannibalism', 'watch
someone die', 'real killers', 'school shootings', as well as the obligatory
p***/s** types e.g. fisting etc etc ... [my apologies to the squeamish]
Ellen
-----Original Message-----
From: K Fearon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 22 September 2000 17:49
To: Martin L Poulter
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: What would you do?
Actually the example that occurred to me was that of the sealed sections
you see in some woman's magazines occasionally. I remember one which shall
remain nameless which was about women's breasts and all the possible
shapes and sizes they can be. It included some graphic pictures of unusual
deformities and while they could probably get away with claiming it was
educational, to me it seemed gratuitous and inappropriate.
The images themselves were perfectly legal and there were no copyright
issues, but I felt they were used completely out of context. I couldn't
help wondering whether the women shown, who would have signed away their
right to decide what was done with the images, would have been happy about
the way their pictures were used.
Kriss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Coordinator Stables S011 Tel: (01904) 434682 Fax: 433538
University of York, UK 9-5.15, Mon-Fri http://www.york.ac.uk/coord/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|