What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida
Can someone please answer this question? I have consulted local attorneys. They laugh at me. I think I must not be making my self clear, but here is a try.
Many companies post copies of public domain art on the Internet. I am talking about true public domain works, old art, way past 1923. For example, a Rembrandt, a Monet, Stuart's portrait of George Washington, 1800s photos...pieces like that.
They then try to sell those copies, sometimes at very high prices. More power to them if they can get the money, but my contention is this. Tell me if I am wrong. As exact copies of the original work, these derivatives confer no copyright whatsoever to the agent that posts them on the Internet. By posting them, the organization (Corbis, or Getty, or Joe Blow) is performing a magnanamous gesture to the public, whether it intends to or not. Should I not have perfect right to copy this image to use any way I wish? The original is, after all, public domain, and the copy has not been significantly or artistically altered. I shouldn't have to buy a copy of an 1870s photo, for example, from Corbis and pay them several hundred dollars in licensing. That photo is public. Corbis chose to put it on their website...oh well.
Other than Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp there seems to be no law
dealing with this, and Bridgeman is British law. I desperately would like to hear members of this forum's opinions.
Can someone please answer this question? I have consulted local attorneys. They laugh at me. I think I must not be making my self clear, but here is a try.
Many companies post copies of public domain art on the Internet. I am talking about true public domain works, old art, way past 1923. For example, a Rembrandt, a Monet, Stuart's portrait of George Washington, 1800s photos...pieces like that.
They then try to sell those copies, sometimes at very high prices. More power to them if they can get the money, but my contention is this. Tell me if I am wrong. As exact copies of the original work, these derivatives confer no copyright whatsoever to the agent that posts them on the Internet. By posting them, the organization (Corbis, or Getty, or Joe Blow) is performing a magnanamous gesture to the public, whether it intends to or not. Should I not have perfect right to copy this image to use any way I wish? The original is, after all, public domain, and the copy has not been significantly or artistically altered. I shouldn't have to buy a copy of an 1870s photo, for example, from Corbis and pay them several hundred dollars in licensing. That photo is public. Corbis chose to put it on their website...oh well.
Other than Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp there seems to be no law
dealing with this, and Bridgeman is British law. I desperately would like to hear members of this forum's opinions.
Last edited: