On 11/06/2012 2:04 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
On Jun 10, 2012, at 21:21 , William Robb wrote:
Seems to me that if the copyright owner isn't able to supply you with a print,
they have pretty much invalidated any claim they could make for damages.
That's another way to express it. There is no one alive to ask that permission.
The company or studio that took the photo in 1897 is no longer reachable,
probably it no longer exists. In my heart I truly believe if I did contact the
copyright holder and asked for a print, they could not provide one. Few
companies, and fewer individuals have kept their library of negatives for over
100 years. If there was a historical value to one or more images stamped with
the name of the copyright holder, they were bought up or had donated to
companies or collectors such as the Library of Congress, or such as the
National Photo Company Collection or the Detroit Publishing Catalog.
More current images should be asked if the copyright holder can be reached in
some way, yes?
Copyright violation is all about damages. I think our laws differ
between our two countries on this. I may be wrong, but it seems to me
that damage settlements in your country are sometimes rather
capriciously arrived at, whereas in Canada, damage awards are more in
line with actual damages.
While the actual copying of the work may be illegal, if the copyright
owner isn't able to supply copies himself, he really can't claim he is
being damaged if someone copies his work.
This may not make the copying legal, but it should limit damages
collectible, especially if the copying is non commercial, such as
distributing a few copies of an image of someone's family taken a
hundred or more years ago.
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
