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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
