How do you know, I mean, where would he use the photos (I'm reluctant to search Allen's various web sites, and give him a hit on his meter, so you please tell me: what on earth is he doing with the photos? Photo-shopping them to make up another slanderous attack? Why give exposure to his opponent? This gets loonier and loonier.

They really know what they are doing! Ha!

I know Jim has the Academy background and its important, but he needs to lose the double windsor every once in a while! Great picture.

The photographs from the Webb campaign have been used repeatedly on Allen's TELEVISION ads.  He has pirated more than a few.  Almost every image you see of Jim Webb in Allen's video ads, both on Television and on the internet, have been created by photographers who support Jim Webb.  THey have been downloaded, without permission and despite the objections of their creators who own them, from the Webb for Senate Photo Galleries.  They are NOT in the public domain just because they are on a website.  The "Fair Use" doctrine within the U. S. Copyright code applies here and it supports our objections.

has no scruples, morals, or respect for the law.  They also, ironically, have no respect for private property.  Weird, considering that they bill themselves as "Jeffersonian conservatives."  Guess not...

Two thoughts on photo usage:

We, the grassroots/blogosphere, tend to use copyrighted photos for all sorts of purposes - most of which haven't been approved by the owners or paid for by said users.  So let's be a bit careful about pointing fingers.

Having said that, there is a significant difference between a well funded, official campaign and the grassroots.  The Allen campaign should by all means be paying for the copyrighted works they use.  Some of the people taking these pictures make their living this way and should definitely be paid.

While people who willingly enter the public sphere (politicians) forfeit some of their privacy (which is why Webb was within his right to use Reagan clips praising him, notwithstanding Allen's objections. While I was able to "blckmail" a photographer -- back in Poland -- into giving me a 2'x1.5' portrait for free, because he used it -- without my permission -- as an ad for his skills), a photograher retains the copyright on the photo, and you have to have his/her permission to use it at all, even in a non-political, non-commercial setting (I accidentally learnt this while being a part of the editorial board of an educational lace publication ).

So, yes, Allen's campaign should be paying *big bucks* for the use of the photos... Probably enough to finance a TV spot for one of Webb's ads :)

The operative terms here are "permission" and "objection".  The owner of a work retains absolute rights to grant permission for fair use of a work.  Further, the owner is legally empowered to object to the use of a work without permission.  We have courteously notified the Allen campaign through registered mail more than once beginning September 19, 2006 that we object to their use of our works without permission.  Their only response has been to download and use additional works, without permission and against our objections.  C. W. Dean, 30 Oct 2006