5 ms·
I own quite a few of the books with 'old' images in - ie ones that have been collated because they're in the public domain now, and everything is free to use.
by iamben 5y ago
I own quite a few of the books with 'old' images in - ie ones that have been collated because they're in the public domain now, and everything is free to use.
I wonder if there was a particular licence in this book? Like if I buy an image from a stock site, generally it's "fine for the web as part of a 'something'" but I need an extended licence to sell it on t-shirts or book covers. Maybe something like that? But I agree that feels like a stretch...
- baud147258 5y agothe pictures in the books aren't public domain and, according to the article "Juracek [the photograph] said she requires people to license images from her for commercial use by contacting her directly"
- judge2020 5y agoWell, what she says now and what is shown to the customer at purchase/before use is what matters. That's why repos have a LICENSE file - you need proof that someone improperly used the work without adhering to the license or were reckless enough to not read the license before reusing the work.
- kadoban 5y agoIsn't it largely the other way around, the accused would need to show that they have some suitable license or successfully argue that the have fair-use grounds (the latter sounds unlikely in this case to me)? Maybe it's a distinction without a difference in civil matters, since there's not really a presumption of guilt or innocence AFAIK in civil.
- Retric 5y agoNo, you need explicit permission to use copyrighted works outside of fair use exceptions. Therefore it’s up to the customer to prove they got permission from the correct source.
- shkkmo 5y agoA license is a permission to use something in a particular way. If there is no license available for a thing, then you have no permission to use that thing.