3 ms·
> The argument here, I think, is that in 10, 20, 30 years, the site used to host the original PD works will either go offline or otherwise be buried in search r
by Infernal 4y ago
> The argument here, I think, is that in 10, 20, 30 years, the site used to host the original PD works will either go offline or otherwise be buried in search results, when Getty et al stay #1 in the search results and charge for the PD work
Sounds like Getty et al would be providing a valuable service in that case.
- ghaff 4y agoJust because something is in the public domain doesn't mean an unspecified someone is required to bear the costs of hosting it and providing access with a good user experience, metadata, search, etc. Fortunately, in many cases, organizations like the (in the US) the Library of Congress and non-profits like the Internet Archive do. But no one is required to do so. (Aside from some legal mandates in the case of the LoC.)
- type0 4y ago> Sounds like Getty et al would be providing a valuable service What valuable service? they are extortionists - https://onehourprofessor.com/getty-images-demand-letter-getty-images-lawsuit/ https://onehourprofessor.com/getty-images-demand-letter-gett...
- Infernal 4y agoWell, in the posed scenario, when the free option for acquiring the work is no longer available, but the paid option is still available - the service is making the work available at all when it otherwise wouldn't be.