This is all about EGO and not about copyright violation.
So we see that he took each photo and his name has to be on it
12 times..... for each month, including the cover, the
inside covers and the back? Oh, golly gee whiz, isn't that
special?
If anyone really cared about who took the photo, they will look
in the back of the calendar and read about it.
This would be a stupid lawsuit if he goes thru with it.
If he has that kind of money to spend-- let him have his fun.
If you gather 100 calendars, 95 of them will have
photographer credit in small print in back.
3 of the calendars will have no photographer credit (stock photos).
1 will list all the photographers on each image because it's part
of the liner notes. (example: playboy photographers, or sports
illustrated photographers, etc)... simply because they are "name."
photographers.)
And the other one- simply because the person self-published.
Tell the guy to grow up, be a man, and if he wants that kind of
recognition, go print up and sell his own calendar. Because the
money he will spend on a lawsuit could've been spent doing just that.
There are plenty of big time photographers who live with it, why can't he?
Greg.
|