Marnie - wrong. They do not hold a copyright on the National Archive Material. They hold a copyright on their representation of that material. Like the example I posted earlier: commercial publishers take the free Pub 17 from the IRS (the basic manual on how to do your income taxes), they copy it, and sell it. They copyright what they sell, and it would be illegal for you to copy and sell that commercial publication. But there is nothing to stop you from copying and selling the IRS Pub 17.
If Getty had exclusive rights to distribution, then I wold agree that the public got screwed, as we do with every ounce of ore and oil that is taken from public lands in exchange for payment of miniscule "royalties." But I don't believe Getty has exclusive rights. And so there really is no issue. Stan On May 22, 2007, at 10:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 5/22/2007 1:56:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Getty are, incorrectly, claiming to hold a copyright on the images. > That's illegal (fraudulent misrepresentation?). > The National Archives could not transfer the copyright to Getty, > because it was not theirs to transfer - under US copyright laws > just about anything done with public/government funding must be > made freely available to the public. > > =========== > That's what I thought. So that selling was is in a government > archive is > illegal. Because it is supposed to be free. Well, not sure about > that, but it > sounds right. The copyright stuff has to be illegal. > > Marnie aka Doe > > --------------------------------------------- > Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. > > > > > ************************************** See what's free at http:// > www.aol.com. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
