Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is it legal , ethical or even fair to buy out images in the public domain?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-03 07:15 PM
Original message
Is it legal , ethical or even fair to buy out images in the public domain?


Annexing the Public Domain
In 1995 a virtually unknown company called Corbis purchased the Bettman Archives, the world's largest private collection of historical and newspaper photographs. Corbis, a company founded in 1989 and owned by Bill Gates, is also actively negotiating with museums worldwide for exclusive licenses to electronically reproduce works of art held in their collections. Since that time, the Corbis "collection" has swelled to over 20 million images.

The apparent purpose is to provide Microsoft with access to a huge supply of exclusive cultural "content" for its web sites and multimedia CDs, and to prevent others from obtaining similar access. The rub is that Corbis now holds exclusive reproduction rights to images which are not copyrighted, but are in held in the public domain. Gates has seduced these museums, presumably with promises of future residuals, into veering from their missions as trustees of our cultural legacies, and into exploring the murkiest areas of "fair use" practices and curatorial ethics.


http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/dirtytricks.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-03 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Once something is in the public domain, that's it. No going back.
Once something is in the public domain, that's it. No going back. There's no way for anyone to hold "exclusive reproduction rights to images which are not copyrighted, but are in held in the public domain."

I guess they could say they do. I could say I'm the Emperor of Mars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-03 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Greetings O Great One!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuxvomica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-03 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's all part of the privatization trend
Edited on Tue Aug-12-03 08:08 PM by nuxvomica
Our corporate overlords have been successful at privatizing and/or branding everything in sight. Utilities, prisons, school cafeterias, sports and entertainment venues, etc. When the politicians can't give it to them outright, they need to jigger the copyright laws and approval process to give away even that which governments don't own. This is privatization of our cultural heritage. I recall hearing a while back that Gates was trying to figure out how to acquire exclusive rights to public domain literature in electronic form as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-03 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. It's also part of the "intellectual property" trend...
... corps are going nuts on IP these days. Best example is the RIAA.

What happens when Corbis comes after you with a lawsuit for using the Mona Lisa as your desktop wallpaper?

-sy-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-03 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Well...
you'll note that the Bettman Archive was in the business of selling those images long before Gates was sucking at his mother's teat. There are a lot of other image renting companies out there, and photo service bureaus and archives have long been the way to get art for your publications. And it none of it was ever free. Never cost all that much, but definitely not free.

Around the time we started getting those "10,000 images on a CD-ROM" deals, the service bureaus and individual photographers were up in arms about income being drained by people just grabbing free art. Now, it's assumed by a lot of people that whatever is out there is free for the taking.

Copyrighted images have always had renewal options, and corporate copyrights are one matter, but individual copyrights are good for 75 years after the holder dies. That means anything done after 1928 ain't in the public domain unless the owner sez it is, and some stuff prior to that might not be, either.

As far as images of Goya's paintings or Roman mosaics go, yeah, the originals are in the public domain, sort of (don't try walking away with a Raphael), but you might have an argument with the museum about the reproductions sold in their gift shops. If you go in and photograph or copy the original, that's yours, but someone else's copy may not be.

Lawyers make their boat payments with this stuff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC