On Wed, July 28, 2010 12:31, James Schenken wrote: > Copyright is an interesting issue. Isn't it just! > Duration of copyright is discussed at: > http://www.copyrightguru.com/copyright_duration_table.html > In the article I saw on the subject, the implication was that at least one > of the images corresponded to an image that had been published. If true, > then that one is in public domain. I've been paying a lot of attention to copyright law as it thrashes around over the last 30 years, both for photos and for books (Project Gutenberg). (As an interested amateur, though, not as an expert.) Interesting, that source thinks that unpublished work is clearly protected. So the unpublished works are protected until 1984 + 70 = 2054 (since that's larger than 2047). The published works are most likely in the public domain in the US (but could be still copyrighted if they were published after 1922 and the copyright registration was renewed properly). > If the copyright still pertains to some of the images, then the current > owner need only retain the negatives for a set number of years and then > copyright expires. There seems to be no question as to the ownership of > the > negatives - so the Adams Foundation cannot now create a new copyright > registration because they will not be able to supply a copy for the > registration process. Registration is largely beside the point; they already own the copyright if there is one. And in this case, just getting actual damages (if the valuations are right) would be sufficient (one of the reasons to register before the infringement is that it lets you claim statutory damages, which may make an infringement worth prosecuting that isn't based only on actual damages). I'm reasonably sure there are procedures for disputing the copyright of something you don't have the original of. Obviously it's easier if you have it; goes towards showing you're the creator (or their heirs). > This is one of those very interesting intellectual property issues that > comes up from time to time. Indeed. Many lawyers and people like us will be amused, and a few lawyers will probably make a lot of money. > Assuming the estimate of the value at $200M is even close, then it should > just be a matter of the Foundation and the current owner negotiating and > appropriate settlement. They both have incentive to do so. The > Foundation > to get $$$$ right now and the current owner to get $$$ before he dies. Complicated by family being involved in the foundation; they're more likely to take an emotional position on this rather than a rational one. The grandson says the handwriting on the labels doesn't match, experts hired by Norsigian say it does. The grandson doesn't, so far as I know, count as an expert. That should be interesting to hear argued out; especially since I'm unclear on just how seriously I should really take handwriting experts. If even one of the negatives clearly matches prints that were issued as authentic back in the day, that's going to settle the provenance in most people's minds (of course, on Leverage you could build a scam on obtaining just the one negative, and then assembling a collection around it and faking all the wrappers and so forth...). -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
