I didn't really want this thread to deal with legal issues. We covered that once before, and some of the stuff may have to go all the way to the Supreme Court it is so complicated.

What I wanted your opinions on was, since Robert's case was a person, a nude, I wondered what all the landscape/scenic people felt if the same thing were to happen to them. I noticed that a lot of you said live and learn etc, give them back or destroy them.

I'm wondering if say, YOU, had taken a great shot of some landscape thing and had permission but later the owner wants the negs and prints. Would you be so accomadating. Live and learn, good will and all that, or would you fight for your work.

Is the fact that this is a nude, is that the determing factor, or that someone is whining, and to shut them up you give in. Is it because they are badmouthing you in public or you are afraid they might. Is it because you fell that you may get future business with them that you give in.

Could it be that you didn't, in the pre-shoot consulation tell them that the negs are yours forever. The gift that keeps on giving, twenty years later when you are running for president. Is it that you feel you exploited them in the first place and they are being victimized by your ownership of their naked form. Is it that you yourself are self conscious about nudity. Is that it bunky? Sorry.

When is our work worth fighting for. As has been ascertained in previous forums, WE ARE ARTISTS. When does our art become worth fighting for. Or as soon as someone raises their voice do we throw everything at them and run away.

Just asking

Michael MCBlane