Re: How can the Bettmann Archive possibly work (or be legal) ?

At 8:33 AM 10/19/95 -0400, Esoteric Resources Incorporated wrote:
>
> Remember last week's news about Bill Gates buying the Bettmann Archive -
> a large collestion of drawings, photos, etc. ?
> ....
> I have two questions:
>
> The painting question: this portrait is circa 1805. Hasn't the copyright
> expired? (At least in the USA?)

Yes

> The only way I can see the BA attempting
> to retain it is by rephotographing (or recopying) the portrait each
> year, and supplying a 'fresh copy' of it to those wishing to use it.

A "fresh copy" would not "refresh" the copyright once it has expired.

> Obviously, then, the way around that is to find a book printed pre-1920
> with a copy of the portrait within, and use that as the source for the
> portrait.

You could do that.

> The manuscript question: a 'book' published, say, in 1100 A.D., probably
> wasn't copyrighted (correct me when I'm wrong). If it was reprinted in,
> say, 1950, copyright would be owned by (probably) the publisher.

No. The publisher has simply published a public domain work

> But, let us say it was published (reprinted) in 1919. Wouldn't it now
> (in the USA) be in the public domain ?

Yes, its in the public domain, but because it was published in 11 A.D., not because a 1919 copyright has expired

> So, am I wrong ? If so, where ?
>
> And if I'm not wrong, how can the Bettmann Archive charge for use of
> their pictures?

Because they own the pictures, i.e. the copies in their possession, whether or not those pictures are copyrighted.

> I can see charging for the legwork ("I need a picture of a bird-headed guy
> in a cowl, wielding a scythe") but how can they say they 'own the rights
> to' pictures in cases such as those I've described ?

They own the right to allow, or not allow, access to the archive for the purpose of duplicating works in the archive.

John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgs.dgsys.com> Received on Fri Oct 20 1995 - 13:26:46 GMT