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