amalyah keshet writes: > We sell reproduction > rights to our photographs, which are very much in copyright & > not in the public > domain (yet). I've found no examples of U.S. courts upholding the copyright on photographs taken to document an item in a collection. They aren't considered original enough. I think a postcard is, though. Even though something seems as though it is copyrighted, it's the case law that determines the reality of the right. > I'd look at it this way: in the US, the on-line version of > the NYT competes with > conventional subscriptions; You have to figure out the cost of printing and paper with the online edition, then figure in the ad and other revenue such as charging for searches. The Times also doesn't want to have to deal with international rights for the writers, or things like libel laws outside the U.S. They don't put the book review up at all because the rights issue is so sticky with all those freelancers. -- ROBBIN MURPHY, creative director, artnetweb [log in to unmask] -- http://artnetweb.com 426 Broome Street, NYC 10013 212 925-1885 READINGS: http://artnetweb.com/views/viewsind.html