Art in the Park: copyright protected?

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:09:37 GMT, "Robert Brace"
wrote:

And I assume you (or the "rent-a-cops") have some as yet unnamed method of
determining, while I am taking a photograph or even prior, that I am a
"professional" who is taking that shot for profit


Excuse me? I said I didn't agree with prior restraint. Check your
comprehension. I wasn't defending the policy of the city, only an
artist's right to copyright.

My comprehension is working well, thank you for your concern. To quote your
relative comment: "I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to
enforce copyright...." still seems to show faint support and is somewhat
equivocal.
Now you say: "I didn't agree with prior restraint" and that I interpret as
appropriately unequivocal. It appears I've helped you to solidify your
position on prior restraint. I'm glad I could help ;-)
By the way, I totally agree with the artist's right to copyright, just don't
expect it to be respected in a public access space.
Bob

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:09:37 GMT, "Robert Brace"
wrote:

And I assume you (or the "rent-a-cops") have some as yet unnamed method of
determining, while I am taking a photograph or even prior, that I am a
"professional" who is taking that shot for profit


Excuse me? I said I didn't agree with prior restraint. Check your
comprehension. I wasn't defending the policy of the city, only an
artist's right to copyright.

My comprehension is working well, thank you for your concern. To quote your
relative comment: "I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to
enforce copyright...." still seems to show faint support and is somewhat
equivocal.
Now you say: "I didn't agree with prior restraint" and that I interpret as
appropriately unequivocal. It appears I've helped you to solidify your
position on prior restraint. I'm glad I could help ;-)
By the way, I totally agree with the artist's right to copyright, just don't
expect it to be respected in a public access space.
Bob

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:09:37 GMT, "Robert Brace"
wrote:

And I assume you (or the "rent-a-cops") have some as yet unnamed method of
determining, while I am taking a photograph or even prior, that I am a
"professional" who is taking that shot for profit


Excuse me? I said I didn't agree with prior restraint. Check your
comprehension. I wasn't defending the policy of the city, only an
artist's right to copyright.

My comprehension is working well, thank you for your concern. To quote your
relative comment: "I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to
enforce copyright...." still seems to show faint support and is somewhat
equivocal.
Now you say: "I didn't agree with prior restraint" and that I interpret as
appropriately unequivocal. It appears I've helped you to solidify your
position on prior restraint. I'm glad I could help ;-)
By the way, I totally agree with the artist's right to copyright, just don't
expect it to be respected in a public access space.
Bob

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:49:37 GMT, "Robert Brace"
wrote:

My comprehension is working well, thank you for your concern. To quote your
relative comment: "I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to
enforce copyright...." still seems to show faint support and is somewhat
equivocal.

Would you like me to break down the sentence structure for you?

I agree with an artist's right to copyright. I don't agree with
prior restraint.

You strawman will not stand. You indicated in your post that "you (or
the rentacops)" would prevent you from taking your image. I couldn't
care less what you do in the middle of Saskatchewan...unless it's to
copy and sell something that another artist has created.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:49:37 GMT, "Robert Brace"
wrote:

My comprehension is working well, thank you for your concern. To quote your
relative comment: "I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to
enforce copyright...." still seems to show faint support and is somewhat
equivocal.

Would you like me to break down the sentence structure for you?

I agree with an artist's right to copyright. I don't agree with
prior restraint.

You strawman will not stand. You indicated in your post that "you (or
the rentacops)" would prevent you from taking your image. I couldn't
care less what you do in the middle of Saskatchewan...unless it's to
copy and sell something that another artist has created.

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:49:37 GMT, "Robert Brace"
wrote:

My comprehension is working well, thank you for your concern. To quote
your
relative comment: "I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to
enforce copyright...." still seems to show faint support and is somewhat
equivocal.

Would you like me to break down the sentence structure for you?

I agree with an artist's right to copyright. I don't agree with
prior restraint.

You strawman will not stand. You indicated in your post that "you (or
the rentacops)" would prevent you from taking your image. I couldn't
care less what you do in the middle of Saskatchewan...unless it's to
copy and sell something that another artist has created.

There you go being equivocal again.
Tsk....Tsk....Tsk

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:49:37 GMT, "Robert Brace"
wrote:

My comprehension is working well, thank you for your concern. To quote
your
relative comment: "I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to
enforce copyright...." still seems to show faint support and is somewhat
equivocal.

Would you like me to break down the sentence structure for you?

I agree with an artist's right to copyright. I don't agree with
prior restraint.

You strawman will not stand. You indicated in your post that "you (or
the rentacops)" would prevent you from taking your image. I couldn't
care less what you do in the middle of Saskatchewan...unless it's to
copy and sell something that another artist has created.

There you go being equivocal again.
Tsk....Tsk....Tsk