I know Colonel Qaddafi is a ruthless dictator and probably a mass murderer, but his personal belongings and memories should be left alone. These days the distinction between the public and private domains seems rather vague, but publishing someone else’s family photos is strictly beyond the line. If nothing else, it’s just ugly.
Just vaguely curious….does the ‘newsworthiness’ of being an alleged mass murderer and tyrant, and appearing in a ‘found’ photograph, somehow remove the intellectual property rights of the photographer to be credited for taking the work in the first place?
Personally though I suspect its even worse than duckrabbit thinks – these may be skisuits, and thats not going to be cool.
Discussion (2 Comments)
I know Colonel Qaddafi is a ruthless dictator and probably a mass murderer, but his personal belongings and memories should be left alone. These days the distinction between the public and private domains seems rather vague, but publishing someone else’s family photos is strictly beyond the line. If nothing else, it’s just ugly.
Just vaguely curious….does the ‘newsworthiness’ of being an alleged mass murderer and tyrant, and appearing in a ‘found’ photograph, somehow remove the intellectual property rights of the photographer to be credited for taking the work in the first place?
Personally though I suspect its even worse than duckrabbit thinks – these may be skisuits, and thats not going to be cool.