3 ms·

My reading of this article is getty was claiming they own the rights to the photos, and requested payment from the photographer. Because they didn't have a reco

My reading of this article is getty was claiming they own the rights to the photos, and requested payment from the photographer. Because they didn't have a record of her paying them... Despite the fact she didn't get it from them.

oliwarner 7y ago
Yeah, that's my reading too. Getty treated this as if it were exclusive and that they were working as sole agent for the owner. They do this for lots of the things they distribute. But PD is incidental here. Getty could have legitimately had a exclusive license and still incorrectly gone after its creator.
anticensor 7y ago
Getty treated itself as the state and the work as a government royalty subject. (government royalty subject is what your work becomes if you do a work-for-hire for a continental European government, i.e. the government becoming the copyright owner)
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  In the USA all works of the government are considered public domain. The idea of a public copyright is a legal contradiction in terms. So it's perfectly legal to take PDFs of official government publications and republish them if you think there's a market for it.
  - mthoms 7y ago
    Minor nitpick: All works of the _federal_ government are public domain. The works of other governments may, or may not be.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > In the USA all works of the government are considered public domain. Only the federal government. State governments can and do (automatically, just like other creators) own copyright to their works under US law. > The idea of a public copyright is a legal contradiction in terms. No, its not. > So it's perfectly legal to take PDFs of official government publications and republish them if you think there's a market for it. It often is not, even with federal government publications, because: (1) Official government publications may include non-federal works that are protected by copyright with a non-sub-licensed permission from the copyright owner (including works created by government contractors.) (2) Even though copyright may not apply, rules regarding use of government-owned trademarks, government agency logos, etc. may restrict your commercial use and marketing of government works. (3) If your use isn't strictly limited to use within the United States, it may still fall afoul of federal government copyrights, because the US federal government can and does assert international copyrights to its works, its works are only copyright-free within the US. https://www.usa.gov/government-works https://www.usa.gov/government-works
  - anticensor 7y ago
    It is the norm in continental Europe. All government works being public domain is exceptional, only being valid in USA, PRC and Israel.

oliwarner 7y ago

Yeah, that's my reading too. Getty treated this as if it were exclusive and that they were working as sole agent for the owner. They do this for lots of the things they distribute. But PD is incidental here. Getty could have legitimately had a exclusive license and still incorrectly gone after its creator.

anticensor 7y ago

Getty treated itself as the state and the work as a government royalty subject. (government royalty subject is what your work becomes if you do a work-for-hire for a continental European government, i.e. the government becoming the copyright owner)

anigbrowl 7y ago
In the USA all works of the government are considered public domain. The idea of a public copyright is a legal contradiction in terms. So it's perfectly legal to take PDFs of official government publications and republish them if you think there's a market for it.
- mthoms 7y ago
  Minor nitpick: All works of the _federal_ government are public domain. The works of other governments may, or may not be.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > In the USA all works of the government are considered public domain. Only the federal government. State governments can and do (automatically, just like other creators) own copyright to their works under US law. > The idea of a public copyright is a legal contradiction in terms. No, its not. > So it's perfectly legal to take PDFs of official government publications and republish them if you think there's a market for it. It often is not, even with federal government publications, because: (1) Official government publications may include non-federal works that are protected by copyright with a non-sub-licensed permission from the copyright owner (including works created by government contractors.) (2) Even though copyright may not apply, rules regarding use of government-owned trademarks, government agency logos, etc. may restrict your commercial use and marketing of government works. (3) If your use isn't strictly limited to use within the United States, it may still fall afoul of federal government copyrights, because the US federal government can and does assert international copyrights to its works, its works are only copyright-free within the US. https://www.usa.gov/government-works https://www.usa.gov/government-works
- anticensor 7y ago
  It is the norm in continental Europe. All government works being public domain is exceptional, only being valid in USA, PRC and Israel.