I don't think The Getty can actually license the images if they don't own a copyright. The Getty can sell copies. If someone on the staff creates a new image incorporating an old image that can be copyrighted. I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that's within the law.
Bob Shell wrote: > On May 23, 2007, at 4:54 AM, mike wilson wrote: > > >> Getty is paying someone to trawl through the archive, compile a >> series of pictures, produce and distribute a book, all on the >> speculation that it might make a profit. On top of which, these >> images will be much more likely to see daylight than before. Apart >> from the dubious claim to copyright (which, as Stan says, may be >> for the representation rather than the actual images) I'm all for >> it. Save your ire for the ninnys that are running your National >> Archive. They should be producing the publication. >> >> > > What publication? Nobody said anything about Getty producing a book. > > They have added the images to their archives, and they offer to > license the images to their customers. They are probably completely > within the law to do that. > > But they are claiming copyright to images that are in the public > domain, and that's what I have a problem with. Their web site > certainly gives the impression that they own the images, and they do > not. > > If they did produce a book, they could legally copyright the book as > a compilation. You couldn't exactly duplicate the book without > violating copyright, but you could reproduce individual images. > > Bob > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
