The Royal Collection Trust staff kindly explained to me why some photographs that are over 70 years old are still under copyright restrictions. See the next tweet...
"The original photograph will be in the public domain. However, in order for the actual photograph to be available for reproduction purposes we photograph the original work and own the rights in the new photography of the old photograph. "
Bottom line: if we have no other way of accessing the original photo, then basically it is not in the public domain.
And the rule applies not only to the RCT, but to all the institutions that charge for the reproduction of historical photos. I am still trying to understand...
And the rule applies not only to the RCT, but to all the institutions that charge for the reproduction of historical photos. I am still trying to understand...
It does not matter if the picture was taken 100 years ago. It seems that museums and institutions in general have found a way to permanently hold the copyright of that image - which is very frustrating...
I am not judging whether this is right or wrong. I just think it does not make any sense.
The colorization of photos produces an original work, because the image created is not an exact copy of the original photograph. Therefore, the new version belongs legally to its author (as long as the original is in the public domain).
However, when someone takes a photograph of a photograph, resulting in a faithful reproduction, an original work is not being created.
And this argument, besides being insane is also unfair because it limits access to incredible collections that would be of enormous benefit to educational initiatives.
That's why I love the Library of Congress (and others). They have a vast online archive that is constantly expanding, and they make it available for free, as it should be.
Historical photographs are so important. And as the law says, the access to them after a certain period of time should not be limited.
