3 ms·
If they were taken in the 1960s by someone in their 30s who lived to 80, that means we probably have roughly another 60 years until these are free from copyrigh
by TheDong 2y ago
If they were taken in the 1960s by someone in their 30s who lived to 80, that means we probably have roughly another 60 years until these are free from copyright and you can actually publish them in a magazine.
I'm surprised the magazine let them publish as much as they did, given the lack of concrete copyright provenance.
Just think how many historical books and pieces of art and photos we could archive and sort and look at if copyright didn't last literally longer than a human's lifetime.
- Zealotux 2y agoWouldn't that be fair use? In any cases, if someone do claim copyright on that article then the case will be closed.
- bsenftner 2y agoSeems like a fair strategy to locate the photographer: make money with their photos, and tada: they they are! Well, a few hundred claiming to be them.
- mapt 2y agoOf course it would. Because copyright is a dystopian death-pact intended to serve as a deterrent, not a functional system of regulation. If copyright was strictly litigated by all aggrieved parties the damages would exceed the global annual GDP, every few minutes.
- echelon_musk 2y agoThe YouTube video in TFA has the following at around the ~4:50 mark: > Important questions about ownership fair use and copyright need to be addressed
- madsbuch 2y agoBased on the image with the reflection, the photographer is probably closer to 12 - so there is indeed a chance they are still alive. The meaning of copyright is changing as these images are being divorced from their physical medium. It can be read that the film was found and sold - a practice that was probably fine when an image had a physical manifestation. But yes, we are at juncture now with copyrights, as more and more things are virtual.
- dietr1ch 2y agoI'm surprised you care that much about what the law says about Mickey Mouse. It's not for everyone.
- EvanAnderson 2y agoI didn't take the OP's post as "caring about" the law so much as pointing out its absurdity.