I'm not trying to put you down. It sounds like you might think I am. That is not my intention.
I don't think @jmkendall is trying to put me down. I do think @jm is trying to call me wrong and prove so using naught but ambiguity.
I'm not sure that is strictly correct.
And then @jm recounted a court experience.
Unable to discern which of my "that's" wants for correction, I penned my understanding of @jm's experience and asked how @jm's experience in any way relates to my errant and yet elusive "that?"
@jm's next offering is
., first it was not the owner that sued. It was a family member who was not the legal representative of the original photographer.
That visits me as both irrelevant to my rectitude and also baffling. The plaintiff had to assert some claim of ownership to be granted standing to sue by the court.
@jm next offered:
Since all images created since 1950 are currently copyrighted..., The natural assumption is that ALL personal pictures are copyrighted.
@bobby131313 eloquently disproves the first part. I'd still like to know how this fact in any way relates to my errant and still elusive "that?"To my mind, @jm's "assumption" simply adds "not nececssary" to my "not required."
@jm paraphrased me thus:
..., no person need do any research to determine which of the billions of images are not copyrighted.
I'll conclude: I have owned a lot of intellectual property. In addition to trademarks and copy rights, I've been issued very many, perhaps thirty, U.S. and international patents (don't know why, but my favorite one is that issued by the Soviet Union). Trust me or don't to know the bounds of intellectual property ownership. A copyright is a piece of intellectual property.
It is the sole responsibility of the intellectual property owner to inform the public s/he owns it. It is the informed member of the public's responsibility to respect the ownership. With the exception of those obvious instances where personal property and intellectual property overlap (family photos, for instance) members of the public whom the owner fails to inform have no responsibility whatsoever to respect or even contemplate that some owner may be entitled intellectual property rights.
Given the option of choosing between a very interesting coin or a rather valuable one, I'd choose the former every time . My vexation lies in the fact that the two so often coincide.