Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AC016" data-source="post: 410208" data-attributes="member: 9619"><p>In my opinion, it's a money grab and the government is paying peoples salary to go after $30 AUD ( $23 American and 15 British pounds if anyone cares) a year after the photo was taken and the photo was taken with no intent to use it commercially.&nbsp; Hindsight is 20/20.&nbsp; Though, if you go back a year, Scott was not able to tell the future and he was merely taking photos as any other regular person would.&nbsp; If any &quot;fees&quot; were to be collected, they should have been collected at that point in time.&nbsp; But since Scott was not there in any &quot;commercial&quot; capacity (the guy lives in the damn park for crying out loud), no fees needed to be collected.&nbsp; A year later, some pencil neck thinks it's a good idea to waste tax dollars on trying to wrongly collect a measly $30 AUD because he thinks that because the photo was bought by someone over a year later, he can put Scott in a circumstance he was never in to begin with.&nbsp; What's next?&nbsp; Will they go after some guy who took a photo in the park before 1979 (before the park became a park) and sold it a few years later?&nbsp; Give them an inch, they will take a mile.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="AC016, post: 410208, member: 9619"] In my opinion, it's a money grab and the government is paying peoples salary to go after $30 AUD ( $23 American and 15 British pounds if anyone cares) a year after the photo was taken and the photo was taken with no intent to use it commercially. Hindsight is 20/20. Though, if you go back a year, Scott was not able to tell the future and he was merely taking photos as any other regular person would. If any "fees" were to be collected, they should have been collected at that point in time. But since Scott was not there in any "commercial" capacity (the guy lives in the damn park for crying out loud), no fees needed to be collected. A year later, some pencil neck thinks it's a good idea to waste tax dollars on trying to wrongly collect a measly $30 AUD because he thinks that because the photo was bought by someone over a year later, he can put Scott in a circumstance he was never in to begin with. What's next? Will they go after some guy who took a photo in the park before 1979 (before the park became a park) and sold it a few years later? Give them an inch, they will take a mile. [/QUOTE]

Verification