|
who has the copyright of the Abugraib photos?
hello I would like to discuss with you something. surely everyone of you saw the photos of Abugraib. in the newspaper it is underwritten with the name of newsagency or newspapers who gives them the copyright ? did they not belong the people that made the photos? is it normal for a newspaper that they pay for such photos? did the newspapers not ask the agencies what they paid? is this the normal day life of the media ? greetings saba laudanna
by
saba laudanna
at
Sun Dec 10 17:35:43 UTC 2006
(ed. Mar 12 2008)
Berlin,
Germany
| Bookmark this
| Digg this
|
|
|
I believe they were taken by a soldier who was on duty, which would make them public property.
|
Yes, Eunice is right, and I heard this too. Public domain. The soldiers do not own them. If I find that link I will post.
|
“These images are in the public domain because it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide. Pictures taken by U.S. military personnel on duty are ineligible for copyright, unless the photographer successfully claims that the photographs were not taken as part of his or her official duties. The photographers of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos have not made this claim, and have in fact denied it under oath.”
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse_images
Although, I usually don’t reference anything by Wiki, since it can be edited by anyone or their monkey, I believe it to true this time.
|
If anyone had the balls to claim authorship they’d be the copyright holder.
|
Interesting point, James. Or, if OW Legislation were passed then Dick Cheney could harvest them and sell them back to the public for a subscription rate.
|
....what am I saying? ....Cheney could do that now.
|
if These images are in the public domain, then they dont belong to any agencies or newspapers or? if they dont belong to them then nobody as to pay for such photos, or? I’m no sure about that, if somebody take a photo that the usatoday as print or the guardian or the telegraph…did they pay? and if they was taken as part of his or her official duties, is not a proof that the militar establishment was informed about was going on?
|
This has nothing to do with ‘having the balls’. It is the law of any US Government employee, while they are on duty. This iscludes soldiers. Soldiers are on duty 24/7.
|
Saba, These images are in the Public Domain. That means that anyone can use them and does not have to pay to license their use. Anything in the Public Domain is ineligible to be copyrighted, but they can be used in newspapers, etc. and then the publication can be sold under subscription.
Here is a link to the US copyright office: http://www.copyright.gov
|
|
Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
|
via RSS
Recommended
|
via email
You can unsubscribe later.
|
|
|
|