As always, a sense of proportion is needed, unless you are a crusader. Intellectual property and its protection is part of my daily job, so I hope this advice escapes seeming misleading, wrong, or confusing.

You are free to do that, but I suggest you don't waste your time. And as for legal aid, forget it (I'm afraid).

Not quite right, at least according to the T&Cs. Facebook clearly give themselves complete freedom to sublicense. Whether a sublicence has been granted in this instance, I don't know (and rather doubt). Either way, not straightforward to establish. It might be possible to argue that the conditions are unfair in court -- but no doubt the jurisdiction is a US court, so a US lawyer would need to give a view.

The condition about sublicensing is so manifestly inequitable, no one should put a photo on Facebook that they are not prepared to see used as public property.

Have a read through this -- I've only scanned it but it seems correct in all it's essentials http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/web/copyright/ . The Copyright Act is absolutely clear on the point. The only thing to check is that by using Facebook you haven't explicitly granted rights for use of your images beyond the confines of the Facebook site. That would have to be in Facebook's T&Cs (I know nothing about Facebook). In the absence of any such diabolical clause, the rights are wholly yours.

Issue a take-down notice, giving say 10 days for that to happen. Most sites in countries where the notion of a legal jurisdiction means something will comply. If you are serious about enforcing your rights you may have to go further if the take-down notice is ignored. Publishers will do that because ultimately their livelihood is at some risk if they don't, but the expense is not likely to be worth it in the case you've described. The best guard against this sort of thing (as you realise) is to make the file unusable, in one of the ways you describe.

But the legal position, which you ask about, is quite clear. You control all the rights.

Manhattan is magical at night of course. It may mean leaving some clothes behind (!), but a tripod would have its uses. If you feel like a change from urban Manhattan, consider taking the subway north to The Cloisters. Very tranquil, very European (as interpreted by Americans). The Rough Guide is worth getting hold of to help you gauge where to go.

M50 1.7 promptly and safely received in good condition. Thanks for the trade.

C.

What, swelling the ranks of *current* Pentax owners who post 'derogatory' comments?

I have a soft spot for all of the lenses I currently own. I'm pleased it's that way round -- me with the soft spot rather than them. I prefer using the primes (habit, and their unobtrusiveness). Of the primes, the FA31 is probably on the camera most often. Others have spoken of its optical qualities -- which are what really count -- but the aesthetics of it deserve praise. It is superbly engineered and built, a real joy for the eyes. I can even forgive it the fixed hood, which necessitates screwing on a small extension before a Lee (or similar) filter system can be used.

Hard to avoid the impression that other camera brands can be discussed freely when extolling the superiority of the Pentax offering, but less freely if the poster feels that camera x is in certain ways superior to what Pentax happen to offer in a particular niche. You can be pretty certain that Pentax themselves will be trying not only to innovate but also to learn from the best of their competitors -- so why can we not have the discussion too? I know the stock answer, but having heard it a couple of times, it doesn't really carry conviction.