3 ms·
I still don't understand what your point is. Fine, they claimed they were the exclusive "distribution rights holder". And then argued that you don't need to cl
by diffeomorphism 7y ago
I still don't understand what your point is.
Fine, they claimed they were the exclusive "distribution rights holder". And then argued that you don't need to claim copyright to distribute and sublicense PD works. Yeah, fine. But that is irrelevant. The "exclusive" is what is the issue and their comment does not address that at all.
- ChrisLomont 7y ago>I still don't understand what your point is. You wrote "Getty...claim[ed] to be the sole copyright holder." They did not. My first reply quoted this to show the difference between your statement and what the article stated. Do you see that your statement is at odds with what was stated in the article?
- diffeomorphism 7y agoYes, and?