<<In a message dated 1/13/2009 4:20:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, fastfission(a)gmail.com writes: The entire point of me posting this was to point out that this was exactly what we were doing in practice. In the instance of the Einstein-Planck photo, we were using the fact that Corbis had claimed it as a reason to suspect it must be copyrighted. My point was that just because Corbis claims it, doesn't mean it is copyrighted.>> Agreed. But if a possessor of an image, which they themselves created, denys our use of that image, we should respect such a denial. The image belongs, is owned, by them, regardless of whether it can be copyrighted or not, and regardless of whether they claim such a copyright. <<You can't use whether Corbis claims something as evidence of its copyrighted status, if you have other reasons to suspect it is in the public domain. That's my point. Don't trust Corbis to be up front about copyrights. They aren't.>> Agreed. You can only use it as evidence that they make such a claim. Anyone can make a claim of copyright status on things which are not copyrightable in court. That is why there are court fights over it. It is not illegal to suggest that you have a copyright over something which later in court is denied. Exerting a copyright claim does not make you immoral, as you seem to suggest by saying "they aren't upfront". They may have a valid reason for the belief that their effort makes their work copyrightable. <<When we get to the point where we all start trusting Corbis, then Corbis has, _in effect_, taken something from the public domain.>> I deny this claim. We can trust Corbis, that they make copyright claims that are or aren't defensible. However provided we *stop using THEIR images* and use other images of the same material, than what Corbis does or doesn't claim is not relevant. I have a photograph of the Declaration of Indenpendence, which I took with my own camera. I give it to the project. Whether Corbis also has a photo of that, does not stop me or the project in any way from using *my own image*. You seem to be confusing the use of a particular image, with the use of any image of the same work. <<I see lots of stuff I know to be public domain in news media in particular that credits it to Corbis, Getty, etc. This happens even in very obvious cases, like US military photos of atomic tests.>> Of course this is perfectly normal and in fact to do otherwise would be scandalous. IF you use my image, you had better give ME credit regardless of whether my image is of my toaster or the Taj Majal. The image belongs to me, and I give you permission to use it only if I'm credited, and not otherwise. That's S.O.P. in the image world. Nothing to do with copyright. Seperate issue. Will Johnson **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt… cemailfooterNO62)