6 ms·

> the copyright holder of the copy you download from archive.org tomorrow, will be copyright archive.org That is not true.

JackCh 8y ago
I think he's taking poetic license there.
- JackCh 8y ago
  Mea culpa, I gave way too much benefit of the doubt here.
sbhn 8y ago
https://archive.org/details/TaylorSwiftReputation https://archive.org/details/TaylorSwiftReputation That is the latest Taylor swift full album streamable from archive.org
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  When a DMCA takedown notice is filed, the item will go dark. It will still be archived, but inaccessible. If your Internet Archive uploader account has frequent DMCA requests against it, it's disabled. Items don't lose their copyright status by being uploaded or stored in the Internet Archive.
  - sbhn 8y ago
    It will be inaccessible until it becomes public domain, but the copy that you download from archive.org will be copyright archive.org. You can get the music from somewhere else, if you can, you most likely won’t be able to.
    - hobs 8y ago
      Copyrights are not transferable like that once they expire, they expire. Further, that's opposite the entire purpose of Archive.org Where are you getting this information?
      - sbhn 8y ago
        If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. And i could license the usage of my photo. If I make a copy of anything, then I own the copyright on the copy. What if, in time, the only copy you could get hold of was my copy. My copy would be copyright me and you’d need to wait for it to become public domain before you could use it under your terms
        ufo 8y ago
        The difference is that picture is a derived work. When you just make a copy you don't get copyright over the copy.
        asdsa5325 8y ago
        > If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. And i could license the usage of my photo. That's 100% not true. Please stop spreading misinformation because you have no idea what you are talking about. "According to a landmark 1999 federal district court ruling, The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff v. Corel Corporation, 'exact reproductions of public domain artworks are not protected by copyright.'" https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-paintings-copyright_b_1867076.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-painting...
        sbhn 8y ago
        The important word is ‘exact’. Non exact means the copy contains copyrightable differences.
        JackCh 8y ago
        You're just flat out wrong dude. You've got some very bizarre believes about copyright law and I can't fathom where you got them. Whoever you learned from did you a great disservice, or if you 'taught' yourself then you didn't do a very good job at reading.
    - kinsomo 8y ago
      > It will be inaccessible until it becomes public domain, but the copy that you download from archive.org will be copyright archive.org. You can get the music from somewhere else, if you can, you most likely won’t be able to. No. > For example, if a book published in 1995 is a reprint of a book published in 1900, then it is eligible. However, the onus is on us to prove that it is a reprint, and if it doesn't say on the TP&V that it is a reprint, confirming its eligibility may be impractical. https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Volunteers%27_FAQ#V.19._Are_reprints_or_facsimiles_eligible.3F https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Volunteers%27_FAQ#V...
      - sbhn 8y ago
        What if the 1995 copy had a few deliberate errors thrown in like spelling mistakes and re worded sentences, and your new copy copied those errors verbatim, then I could say that you copied the 1995 version, which was still under copyright by the publisher, and not the 1900 version which we can all agree is public domain
        icebraining 8y ago
        Adding a few spelling mistakes and reworded sentences will most likely not pass the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Originality_requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Originality_re..., and therefore not be considered a new copyrighted work.
- asdsa5325 8y ago
  Ok, but that is not related to what he said. Archive.org will not hold Taylor Swift's copyright in the future.
  - sbhn 8y ago
    Archive.org will hold the copyright on its copy of Taylor swifts recording. In 100 years time, perhaps the only accessible copy of Taylor swifts public domain music, will be a copy that you need to download from archive.org
    - asdsa5325 8y ago
      Again, that's simply not true. That's not how copyrights work. Take Project Gutenberg for example- Project Gutenberg hosts public domain work. The copy of the work is still under public domain. What's not under public domain is the fact that PG hosts the public domain work. For example, you wouldn't be able to use Archive.org's trademarks to advertise public domain work. But Archive.org does not gain hold a copyright over a copy of public domain work
      - sbhn 8y ago
        So Getty images has a whole lot of photos of the paintings in the Sistine chapel. I bet those photos are copyright the photographer, ‘yeah but that’s because it’s Getty, that’s allowed’
        JackCh 8y ago
        You seem to be very confused. Getty pays photographers for the rights to their photographs.
        fixermark 8y ago
        Taking a photograph is creation of a new copyrighted work under some now-very-old United States Law. The key idea is "transformation": it's understood that photography includes an editor's eye of what is worth taking a photograph of. Making a copy of a public domain book does not create an independent claim of copyright to the contents of the book. You can make a case that maybe it should, but it legally does not; that's just not how it works.

JackCh 8y ago

I think he's taking poetic license there.

JackCh 8y ago
Mea culpa, I gave way too much benefit of the doubt here.

sbhn 8y ago

https://archive.org/details/TaylorSwiftReputation https://archive.org/details/TaylorSwiftReputation That is the latest Taylor swift full album streamable from archive.org

toomuchtodo 8y ago
When a DMCA takedown notice is filed, the item will go dark. It will still be archived, but inaccessible. If your Internet Archive uploader account has frequent DMCA requests against it, it's disabled. Items don't lose their copyright status by being uploaded or stored in the Internet Archive.
- sbhn 8y ago
  It will be inaccessible until it becomes public domain, but the copy that you download from archive.org will be copyright archive.org. You can get the music from somewhere else, if you can, you most likely won’t be able to.
  - hobs 8y ago
    Copyrights are not transferable like that once they expire, they expire. Further, that's opposite the entire purpose of Archive.org Where are you getting this information?
    - sbhn 8y ago
      If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. And i could license the usage of my photo. If I make a copy of anything, then I own the copyright on the copy. What if, in time, the only copy you could get hold of was my copy. My copy would be copyright me and you’d need to wait for it to become public domain before you could use it under your terms
      - ufo 8y ago
        The difference is that picture is a derived work. When you just make a copy you don't get copyright over the copy.
      - asdsa5325 8y ago
        > If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. And i could license the usage of my photo. That's 100% not true. Please stop spreading misinformation because you have no idea what you are talking about. "According to a landmark 1999 federal district court ruling, The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff v. Corel Corporation, 'exact reproductions of public domain artworks are not protected by copyright.'" https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-paintings-copyright_b_1867076.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-painting...
        sbhn 8y ago
        The important word is ‘exact’. Non exact means the copy contains copyrightable differences.
        JackCh 8y ago
        You're just flat out wrong dude. You've got some very bizarre believes about copyright law and I can't fathom where you got them. Whoever you learned from did you a great disservice, or if you 'taught' yourself then you didn't do a very good job at reading.
  - kinsomo 8y ago
    > It will be inaccessible until it becomes public domain, but the copy that you download from archive.org will be copyright archive.org. You can get the music from somewhere else, if you can, you most likely won’t be able to. No. > For example, if a book published in 1995 is a reprint of a book published in 1900, then it is eligible. However, the onus is on us to prove that it is a reprint, and if it doesn't say on the TP&V that it is a reprint, confirming its eligibility may be impractical. https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Volunteers%27_FAQ#V.19._Are_reprints_or_facsimiles_eligible.3F https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Volunteers%27_FAQ#V...
    - sbhn 8y ago
      What if the 1995 copy had a few deliberate errors thrown in like spelling mistakes and re worded sentences, and your new copy copied those errors verbatim, then I could say that you copied the 1995 version, which was still under copyright by the publisher, and not the 1900 version which we can all agree is public domain
      - icebraining 8y ago
        Adding a few spelling mistakes and reworded sentences will most likely not pass the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Originality_requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Originality_re..., and therefore not be considered a new copyrighted work.
asdsa5325 8y ago
Ok, but that is not related to what he said. Archive.org will not hold Taylor Swift's copyright in the future.
- sbhn 8y ago
  Archive.org will hold the copyright on its copy of Taylor swifts recording. In 100 years time, perhaps the only accessible copy of Taylor swifts public domain music, will be a copy that you need to download from archive.org
  - asdsa5325 8y ago
    Again, that's simply not true. That's not how copyrights work. Take Project Gutenberg for example- Project Gutenberg hosts public domain work. The copy of the work is still under public domain. What's not under public domain is the fact that PG hosts the public domain work. For example, you wouldn't be able to use Archive.org's trademarks to advertise public domain work. But Archive.org does not gain hold a copyright over a copy of public domain work
    - sbhn 8y ago
      So Getty images has a whole lot of photos of the paintings in the Sistine chapel. I bet those photos are copyright the photographer, ‘yeah but that’s because it’s Getty, that’s allowed’
      - JackCh 8y ago
        You seem to be very confused. Getty pays photographers for the rights to their photographs.
      - fixermark 8y ago
        Taking a photograph is creation of a new copyrighted work under some now-very-old United States Law. The key idea is "transformation": it's understood that photography includes an editor's eye of what is worth taking a photograph of. Making a copy of a public domain book does not create an independent claim of copyright to the contents of the book. You can make a case that maybe it should, but it legally does not; that's just not how it works.