Digital BW, The Print

I suspect a large part of the bitching here is ego. Someone got a buck for a print whilst the author couldn't. No wrong has been done. There is no contractual obligation in the print exchange, no restricting obligations. Seth gave someone a pair of pink socks, they didn't like them enough to keep them, gave them to someone else, and now they are for sale at a garage-sale . . . period. 

While I don't think the manner in which it was handled was the most "elegant", no law has been broken, no affront made, except for someone's ego . . . so what. The lesson is simple, especially for someone who has a "law degree" . . . next time put up restrictions in print, get the recipient to sign aforesaid contract, then submit your work. Otherwise, don't participate.

Paul Aparycki

  Seth,
  I was only trying to offer you a more innocent view of what you 
  perceived as some sort of affront. As a twenty five professional 
  photographer I would never condone or support anyone illegally 
  reproducing or distributing intellectual property of any kind. I also 
  won't reproduce copyrighted photos or go into the "gray" area of 
  copyright at all.

  Sometimes things are more innocent than they appear. Blessings and many 
  photo sales to you this holiday season.
  Jerry



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]