Gemma doesn’t seem to have picked up on this one yet, but a while ago Ben and I were talking in MSN, or Yahoo, and he showed me this link to a woman (she is a Graphic Designer) in the USís blog, and at the same time this link to Gem’s site, and asked me what was the same (the hint is to the right ->) it seems Ferris, doesn’t understand that linking to the copyright owners site is a good idea on the web.
Which all in all leads me onto my point about copyright infringement:
As stated in the previous blog post Ruth was involved with the Woodhouse players Little Mermaid and I took some photos for; On the Wood hose players page the following is stated “Images by and © Skippy – http://PhilipMcGaw.com”; why is it that the Redbridge Guardian have failed even to state that the image was provided by the wood house players for inclusion in the article, there is space for the copyright, or reference directly below the image. I would not have minded having something like “image provided by Woodhouse players” as I gave the images to the WHP, but as it is the source of the image is unclear.
Which brings us back to God’s Copyright; in the conversation between Ben and me, he asked if because Ferris had stated
I am going to cherish a sunset that God has made previously and that someone else thought was so beautiful that it had to be captured by a photograph
Is this why she did not feel the need to reference Gemma for taking the photo?
Updated title with regard to Ben’s post on Creationist Copyright.
In this article all copyright holders, and sources have been attributed, and items for which I don’t hold copyright have been used for Citation, I believe this is fair use, please tell me if you disagree.