All I can say is this.
based on this.   The museum no longer owns the copyrights to the work they
have put in the commons even if they owned it before.   Those image would
REQUIRE a written consent of the copyright owner.  the copyright owner based
on what was published so far to the list is not the museum. the museum was
granted use.   Use could be to put the images on a website.  Unfortunaltly
publishing to the commons entails releaseing the copyright in WHOLE and
making it public domain.   Per this What was said was the the museum was
granted USE.  You pretty much have to have a paper that says I GIVE YOU THE
COPYRIGHT and SURRENDER my claim to these works.    Granting use is not
granting the copyright.   The museum has now granted USE to everyone on
earth for those image REGARDLESS of what there secondary statement says.
The museum has per the link below given up its rights to protect the use of
the images in anyway.

http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/
About the Rights Statement

Participating institutions may have various reasons for determining that "no
known copyright restrictions" exist, such as:

   1. The copyright is in the public domain because it has expired;
   2. The copyright was injected into the public domain for other reasons,
   such as failure to adhere to required formalities or conditions;
   3. The institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising
   control; or
   4. The institution has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use
   the work without restrictions.


Randy S. Little
http://reel.rslittle.com
http://imdb.com/name/nm2325729/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rslittle
http://www.creativeheads.net/jsprofile.aspx?j=d5406b5d61&spi=0


On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM, David Haynes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Muses,
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand Randy's point. As far as I can tell,
> neither version of the bill has any effect on the copyright status of any
> object. They seem to simply say that if a user has made an attempt to
> determine the copyright owner of a work that is, in fact, copyrighted and
> fails and subsequently infringes on that copyright, the copyright holder,
> when he comes forward and makes his claim known, is entitled only to the
> amount of money that he would have gotten if the two of them had made a
> normal deal before the infringement (and not the monetary penalties
> provided for in the various copyright laws). In any event, as far as I
> can tell, the Senate bill has been passed and sent to the House where it
> is awaiting a committee (probably subcommittee) hearing, the House bill
> is awaiting a hearing in committee, and so there is no such law yet.
> Assuming all the photographs in this collection on the Web were
> originally taken before 1978, then the real question becomes what
> constitutes 'publishing' a photograph under the old law. It's fairly
> clear that under that law all copies of a published copyrighted work had
> to carry a copyright notice (I'm assuming here that none of the
> photographs in question carry such a notice). So, were they 'published'?
> If my great-grandfather went to the local photographer, had his picture
> taken, and bought a dozen cabinet cards would the photo be published? OK,
> what about the photograph of the town mayor that the same photographer
> made a dozen copies of and offered for sale to the general public? I have
> not been able to find any court decision, at any level, that ruled on
> such a question. I would be delighted if anyone could provide a reference
> to any such case. Happy trails, David
>
> David Haynes                         [log in to unmask]
>   San Antonio
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click for free information on accounting careers, $150 hour potential.
>
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3l692Cbr2BPxLJXxaYSDwZHzN71OdaIzFl4YEBjP6ArNbf7F/
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
> information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
> to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
> "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
> [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
> "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).