3 ms·

Is there a discussion anywhere on how it's legal to publish these copyrighted photos without permission of the author?

• dlivingston 7y ago
  Given that authorship is unknown, this comment seems overly pedantic.
  • unreal37 7y ago
    [Edit to add: I'm going to assume he's still in contact with the family from some of his twitter comments, and that they'll benefit from any money made from this. So they own the copyright and they'll benefit from any money made here.] Maybe. There's historical significance here for sure. But the author is not unknown. Jason Scott says "he's dead" so the author is known to be dead. And copyright just doesn't evaporate when you're dead. His heirs own the copyright. And he's also discussing having people contact him for "reproduction rights". He doesn't own the rights. Am I wrong? IANAL. Interesting cache of photos though.
    • bb88 7y ago
      Or the heirs could just sue. See Vivian Maier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• swebs 7y ago
  Copyright is a civil issue. It's completely legal, you just run the risk of the new owners suing for damages. Which honestly seems pretty unlikely in this case.
• bb88 7y ago
  Yes. This happened before, most notably in the case of Vivian Maier. In short, it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier