4 ms·

> ...did not release them into the public domain This is incorrect. According to the Library of Congress: "Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs a

> ...did not release them into the public domain This is incorrect. According to the Library of Congress: "Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain." [1] [1] http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

hackcasual 10y ago
Yeah, the Library of Congress isn't exactly a licensing body. Well I guess they technically are "the" licensing body, just not in the business of earning money doing it.
jahewson 10y ago
From the article: > The photographer’s photos are listed on the library’s website as being in the public domain with “no known restrictions on publication.” > However, Highsmith says she never abandoned her photo copyrights
mdpopescu 10y ago
It's not possible to renounce copyrights in the US; they're inalienable rights. The only way to get something in the public domain is for the copyright term to pass... and even then there are problems (see the Sherlock Holmes saga).
- dahart 10y ago
  Copyrights are transferrable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Transfer_and_licensing.2C_and_assignment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Transfer_and_licensi... Are you maybe thinking of Moral Rights? Those are inalienable and not transferrable in many countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights Copyrights are also assigned automatically to the creator by the act of creating something, that might also be what you were thinking of.
- E6300 10y ago
  I don't think this is actually true. Can you cite any sources referring to copyright as inalienable in the US?
  - mdpopescu 10y ago
    My bad. In the first place, what I meant is that you can't give up copyright - you can't say "this work is in the public domain". (Or rather, you can, but there's nothing legally preventing you from saying a year later "I changed my mind".) See http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm However, "inalienable" was incorrect - you can most definitely sell your copyright. Second, apparently I was wrong even then: see https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html Face, meet egg.
    - imajes 10y ago
      just to clarify because i think you sort of said you were wrong but i'm not entirely sure... if i read 17 U.S. Code § 201 (d) clearly, it suggests you can transfer ownership of copyright in any normal legal way of executing a contract. I think your confusion is around the idea of works falling into the public domain via expiry of copyright, and/or works that do not have an explicit declaration of rights ownership. In this case it seems she was pretty clear about her transfer of ownership. I don't believe you can rescind that just as you prefer, at any time. see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201
grengineer 10y ago
According to exhibit B [1] - The instrument of gift - she did not intend to relinquish her rights as there are specific conditions for reproduction of the works contained in the Carol M. Highsmith Archive. Also explicit permission is given to the library to make copies of the work for security,preservation etc. [1] Google Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-2
- imajes 10y ago
  You say that but that's not the reading I make of this contract. "I hereby dedicate to the public all rights, including copyrights,... that i posses in this collection". that seems pretty clear cut to me. Conditions for reproduction only seem to express the general ways the content should be available for users of the library. Nothing limiting availability, in fact it's promoting methods of being available. So that leaves the question of a: whether or not getty et al were able to sell works in the public domain. My quick read of it seems that if they can come up with some kind of argument that they are selling derivative work (including perhaps some kind of unique identification layer, or meta data perhaps ... ?), OR that they are selling a reproduction. tenuous, but that may be their justification. as for requesting a license fee, well that's on LCS and Alamy (who I don't think have had an issue in the past 3 years of this stuff, so the multiplier doesn't apply here) NB: Alamy being a uk company, so they can hide behind a corporate shield if their assets are mostly offshore... this is the settle page, from the first exhibit: https://settle.lcs.global/103173853953 https://settle.lcs.global/103173853953 -- that's what she got sent. It doesn't appear that they argue they are the exclusive license holder, and especially if they argue they are holding a license to derivative work -- well. that's a whole ball of wax. Thinking further, since she no longer holds the copyright to these images, and the United States is not listed as a co-plaintiff, I'm not even sure she has standing to bring this case at all -- but, on that, IANAL. :P
  - imajes 10y ago
    Also, this appears to be down to a getty user called 'buyenlarge', who is listing all kinds of work they don't own. For example: This photo- http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515020819 http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515020819 is actually this photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2178341487 https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2178341487 which was taken by a now dead photographer called Russell Lee, and owned by the Farm Security Administration. PS: this same person appears to have about 500k listings for prints etc on amazon.com..... why aren't they a co-defendant?

hackcasual 10y ago

Yeah, the Library of Congress isn't exactly a licensing body. Well I guess they technically are "the" licensing body, just not in the business of earning money doing it.

jahewson 10y ago

From the article: > The photographer’s photos are listed on the library’s website as being in the public domain with “no known restrictions on publication.” > However, Highsmith says she never abandoned her photo copyrights

mdpopescu 10y ago

It's not possible to renounce copyrights in the US; they're inalienable rights. The only way to get something in the public domain is for the copyright term to pass... and even then there are problems (see the Sherlock Holmes saga).

dahart 10y ago
Copyrights are transferrable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Transfer_and_licensing.2C_and_assignment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Transfer_and_licensi... Are you maybe thinking of Moral Rights? Those are inalienable and not transferrable in many countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights Copyrights are also assigned automatically to the creator by the act of creating something, that might also be what you were thinking of.
E6300 10y ago
I don't think this is actually true. Can you cite any sources referring to copyright as inalienable in the US?
- mdpopescu 10y ago
  My bad. In the first place, what I meant is that you can't give up copyright - you can't say "this work is in the public domain". (Or rather, you can, but there's nothing legally preventing you from saying a year later "I changed my mind".) See http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm However, "inalienable" was incorrect - you can most definitely sell your copyright. Second, apparently I was wrong even then: see https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html Face, meet egg.
  - imajes 10y ago
    just to clarify because i think you sort of said you were wrong but i'm not entirely sure... if i read 17 U.S. Code § 201 (d) clearly, it suggests you can transfer ownership of copyright in any normal legal way of executing a contract. I think your confusion is around the idea of works falling into the public domain via expiry of copyright, and/or works that do not have an explicit declaration of rights ownership. In this case it seems she was pretty clear about her transfer of ownership. I don't believe you can rescind that just as you prefer, at any time. see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201

grengineer 10y ago

According to exhibit B [1] - The instrument of gift - she did not intend to relinquish her rights as there are specific conditions for reproduction of the works contained in the Carol M. Highsmith Archive. Also explicit permission is given to the library to make copies of the work for security,preservation etc. [1] Google Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-2

imajes 10y ago
You say that but that's not the reading I make of this contract. "I hereby dedicate to the public all rights, including copyrights,... that i posses in this collection". that seems pretty clear cut to me. Conditions for reproduction only seem to express the general ways the content should be available for users of the library. Nothing limiting availability, in fact it's promoting methods of being available. So that leaves the question of a: whether or not getty et al were able to sell works in the public domain. My quick read of it seems that if they can come up with some kind of argument that they are selling derivative work (including perhaps some kind of unique identification layer, or meta data perhaps ... ?), OR that they are selling a reproduction. tenuous, but that may be their justification. as for requesting a license fee, well that's on LCS and Alamy (who I don't think have had an issue in the past 3 years of this stuff, so the multiplier doesn't apply here) NB: Alamy being a uk company, so they can hide behind a corporate shield if their assets are mostly offshore... this is the settle page, from the first exhibit: https://settle.lcs.global/103173853953 https://settle.lcs.global/103173853953 -- that's what she got sent. It doesn't appear that they argue they are the exclusive license holder, and especially if they argue they are holding a license to derivative work -- well. that's a whole ball of wax. Thinking further, since she no longer holds the copyright to these images, and the United States is not listed as a co-plaintiff, I'm not even sure she has standing to bring this case at all -- but, on that, IANAL. :P
- imajes 10y ago
  Also, this appears to be down to a getty user called 'buyenlarge', who is listing all kinds of work they don't own. For example: This photo- http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515020819 http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515020819 is actually this photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2178341487 https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2178341487 which was taken by a now dead photographer called Russell Lee, and owned by the Farm Security Administration. PS: this same person appears to have about 500k listings for prints etc on amazon.com..... why aren't they a co-defendant?