Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

[Anthony Atkielski]

Laurie writes:

> ... but that it is "practically nil" is at best
> an overstatement ...

Do a search on images, then count the number that are probably _not_
copyrighted.  Very often the number is zero.

> True enough under current copyright laws and
> conventions; but that has not always been the case.

That is irrelevant, since only the current law is applicable.

> Moreover, it can always change in the future.

When it changes, the search engine can change its notice appropriately.

> ... it may just be more practical for these
> search engines to caution that the materials
> might be copyrighted rather than asserting that
> they are.

It would be still more accurate to advise that some images might _not_ be
copyrighted, since the absence of copyright is a rare exception to the rule, and
not the inverse.