I'm no expert in copyright law, but I think your option 3 may well prove not to be relevant.
Highsmith gave ownership of the physical transparencies etc to the LoC.(the use of the word “title” makes that clear), under terms that are specified which includes the right of access/copy by the public, but on terms set and determined by the library.
Highsmith also said that she dedicates "all rights, including copyrights" to the public. That has to be read as being that she has extended her copyright to the public but has NOT removed or deprived herself of any rights she has as the copyright owner.
Getty et al could say that they hold the copyright as they are part of “the public”. But as everyone else in the US is also the public then they’d have difficulty in asking for payment of a licence fee to use the image and mentioning copyright law – and that’s exactly what they did.
The Judge will go for option 1 as it makes more sense.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Todz.
Re:
Highsmith gave ownership of the physical transparencies etc to the LoC.(the use of the word “title” makes that clear), under terms that are specified which includes the right of access/copy by the public, but on terms set and determined by the library.
Highsmith also said that she dedicates "all rights, including copyrights" to the public. That has to be read as being that she has extended her copyright to the public but has NOT removed or deprived herself of any rights she has as the copyright owner.
Getty et al could say that they hold the copyright as they are part of “the public”. But as everyone else in the US is also the public then they’d have difficulty in asking for payment of a licence fee to use the image and mentioning copyright law – and that’s exactly what they did.
The Judge will go for option 1 as it makes more sense.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Todz.
Submit a story now.