IMO it gets really murky if you create derived works from public domain content. I think people should be able to license derived works (provided they don't inf

IMO it gets really murky if you create derived works from public domain content. I think people should be able to license derived works (provided they don't infringe on trademarks etc). If Getty just fails to disclose that the (unmodified?) image is public domain, that strikes me as dishonest. > Is the deal that Getty doesn't know for sure that they don't own the rights, and therefore it doesn't legally count as deliberate / knowing deception? It may or may not be fraud but their business is predicated on not merely delivering but establishing provenance for this kind of content. Whoever added the content to the catalog definitely knew where it came from.