> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 2007/05/23 Wed AM 06:13:42 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Getty claiming copyright on National Archives images > > In a message dated 5/22/2007 9:31:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > If Getty had exclusive rights to distribution, then I wold agree that > the public got screwed, as we do with every ounce of ore and oil that > is taken from public lands in exchange for payment of miniscule > "royalties." But I don't believe Getty has exclusive rights. And so > there really is no issue. > > Stan > > ========== > Okay, thanks, Stan. > > It still stinks, though. :-) If someone buys those images from Getty, they > are probably doing so completely unaware they can get them free elsewhere. > So > while it may not be illegal, it certainly isn't ethical. > > Marnie aka Doe
Getty is paying someone to trawl through the archive, compile a series of pictures, produce and distribute a book, all on the speculation that it might make a profit. On top of which, these images will be much more likely to see daylight than before. Apart from the dubious claim to copyright (which, as Stan says, may be for the representation rather than the actual images) I'm all for it. Save your ire for the ninnys that are running your National Archive. They should be producing the publication. ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
