Re: copy-right infringement, panoramic etc

[Steve Shapiro <sgshiya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I want to add:

There are all sorts of idiots buying and selling on eBay.

I got reallyinvolved with trying to get a Graflock back for my Pacemaker;
andgot down to a choice between a complete set for $200 or a mint one for
$400.

On eBay, I bid and got a complete camera WITH GRAFLEX FLASH! for $188.

there are those who know and those who simply  d o n't k n o w.  Let the
ignorant be.

But, as for legal pursuit for using your image without permission, I'd file.

S. Shapiro
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Buck <buckwiet@xxxxxxxxx>
To: panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: copy-right infringement, panoramic etc


Randy Vaughn-Dotta  wrote:
>
> Never underestimate the enjoyment others get for righteous cynicism.
> Imagine my reaction, as a Fuji 6x17 user, to this advertisers comments
> about how Fuji 6x17 images are "fake" panoramas!!!  Definately ask the
> webmaster to suspend his page untill this is cleared-up.
>
Ouch! That would be forever, because no concensus will ever happen.
However, just to fuel the argument, (purely non-vitriolically)
Webster's (on the Web) defines panoramic as a view of all directions
from a central location and a panoramic camera as one in which both
the lens and film move. I shoot almost exclusively longer thin
negatives, but prefer do not consider them panoramic. Does merely
cropping off the top and bottom of the frame make it panoramic? Why?

Andy

Andy
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com