I have no idea how Bill Gates will operate his archive.... but
Bettmann's License Agreement requires you to go back and clear an
image for further exploitation in the present work (documentary)
your clearing the image for and also requires you to go back to
them for clearance if you want to use the image in any new work.
So that the user is contractually obligated to comply whether the
image is in the pd or not.
Elaine Coolbrith
Elaine_Coolbrith[_at_]WGBH.org
> Date: 10/25/95 8:02 PM
> To: Elaine Coolbrith
> From: cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org
>
> >> RE: How can the Bettmann Archive possibly work (or be legal) ?
> >>
> >> Bettman does not charge for the copyright use but for the physical
> >> ownership of the photo or other work. They are the preserver and
> >> keeper of the archive and therefore in order to maintain the works
> >> for access and use in another work they charge for that use. They
> >> also do searches for you of their archives and this can be invaluable
> >> to a researcher for a publication or documentary.
> >>
> >> Elaine Coolbrith
> >>
> >*************
> >
> > Several people have made this same point, and it seems right to me. But
> > one question lingers . . . why exactly does Bill Gates want to own this
> > archive? Maybe it is because he can't think of anything else he hasn't
> > already bought. If so, fine.
> >
> > But it seems more likely to me that Gates intends to digitize these
> > works and, having done so, try to exert some control not just over
> > the originals, but over the digitized versions as well. That seems
> > more problematic from a copyright standpoint. Right? Or is there
> > some claim to copyright residing in the "creative" work of running
> > the art through a scanner?
> >
> > Even if copyright won't work, perhaps Gates can try to protect his
> > digitized copies with some sort of mass-market contract (say, a
> > shrinkwrap license?). But that protection doesn't seem terribly
> > robust, even if we assume it is legal. All it takes is one buyer to
> > breach the contract and anonymously post the material onto the
> > Internet, and soon everyone can have free copies of the art. The
> > poster may be liable for breach of contract, if she can be found, but
> > presumably everyone else is free to copy the digitized work at
> > that point.
> >
> > Mark Lemley
> > Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law
> > Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
> > mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu
>
> He will make money the same way Bettman did. His customers, or those
> who copy from them, will not spend the time and money to build
> their own archives from the images acquired from Gates. It will
> be more economical for them to repurchase the image each time they
> want to use it. A new download each time is cheaper than storing
> the images, indexing them, and employing archivists. These are
> not generally customers who say "This is a pretty picture that
> I want to take and hang on my wall"; these are customers who
> say "I need a picture of the Great Wall of China in a vertical
> format to illustrate this article."
>
> Gates will probably sell many of the images on CD, where it will
> be cheaper and more efficient to buy and use GAtes's CD than it
> will be to copy it oneself. His product will be a service: store,
> locate and retrieve the image; not an IP product: the image itself.
>
> Buford C. Terrell 1303 San Jacinto Street
> Professor of Law Houston, TX 77002
> South Texas College of Law voice (713)646-1857
> terrell[_at_]stcl.edu fax (713)646-1766
>
> ****NOTE NEW ADDRESS****
Received on Thu Oct 26 1995 - 14:30:59 GMT