On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM,
<WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
<<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.
We were, I thought, talking of photos that Corbis does not own the
rights to and never did, and is certainly not the creator of.
Copy of a copy of a copy and so on.... "Original" is usually a
negative or print in some archive (the original "original" may be long
gone). Many copies are often made of a single photo or image. In the
case of photos from the early 20th century, you sometimes have many
copies from an original negative or plate being distributed to various
places and people, and various histories being recorded for each
separate copy. If the original provenance is lost, it can sometimes
appear that a single photo has several different claims of
"ownership".
Carcharoth