For some reason, on my last post, I did not see Elizabet\'s reply, but have a sort of anewsr.I recently worked at a small manuscript repository with hundreds of thousands of photographs. They charged anywhere from $25 to $100 for duplication of these images, whether they be photographs or scanned images. Although a large majority of the images have had copyright run out on them, the thinking among the administration was that even though the copyright had run out and the image was in the public domain, the repository\'s presentation of the image as either a copy or a scan was itself a copyright by the repository. I don\'t know if this is legally correct or not, but it was (and still is) their thinking.When I mentioned Flickr and the posting of some or most of the non-copyrighted photographs on that site for purposes of getting more researchers to come in and get the actual photographs, I was verbally struck down why would they want to let people know what photographs they have? Even if the images were posted as thumbnails, people would get their photographs from somewhere else rather than the repository. It seems this repository makes almost 100% of its disposable income (the income apart from that given by the governing body for yearly expenses) from photograph reproduction sales.Very backward thinking, in my opinion.
by Miroslav 12:26:53 PM 2012.07.26 |