That is not true.
That is the latest Taylor swift full album streamable from archive.org
Items don't lose their copyright status by being uploaded or stored in the Internet Archive.
Further, that's opposite the entire purpose of Archive.org
Where are you getting this information?
That's 100% not true. Please stop spreading misinformation because you have no idea what you are talking about.
"According to a landmark 1999 federal district court ruling, The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff v. Corel Corporation, 'exact reproductions of public domain artworks are not protected by copyright.'"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-painting...
>"The internet wayback machine is one of the biggest copyright thiefs in my opinion."
Anyways, copyright is weird and complicated and there are many people who don't really understand it. But your theory that archive.org is going to get a copyright on everything they scan and store is not rooted in any sort of legal reality.
If the photo meets the requirement for independent copyright ability, which requires being a distinct creative work, that's true, and for a photo that would often but not always be the case.
For a simple non-transformative digital copy, there's no copyrightable new work and no copyright in such a work.
> What if, in time, the only copy you could get hold of was my copy. My copy would be copyright me and you’d need to wait for it to become public domain before you could use it under your terms
If someone was copying elements that were original in your work of the photograph, true, but if they were merely copying the pubkic domain text of which you had taken a photograph, no, not true at all. Copyright protects your original work.
No.
> For example, if a book published in 1995 is a reprint of a book published in 1900, then it is eligible. However, the onus is on us to prove that it is a reprint, and if it doesn't say on the TP&V that it is a reprint, confirming its eligibility may be impractical.
https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Volunteers%27_FAQ#V...
There's a growing push to legitimize copyright claims for "instances" of a work, even after the base work has entered the public domain.
If this "sounds ridiculous" to you, just recall how most of us are increasingly worried that, in the U.S., Congress and the Executive are going to... "re-Mickey" the copyright term. As in, they already pushed it to life plus 70 years when certain Disney copyrights were about to expire. (And keep using "trade agreements" as one mechanism to try to "back door" increases to "plus 70" into other countries' IP terms.)
A separate concern I have, is that currently archive.org continues to "retroactively respect" robots.txt changes.
404 your once public content, and archive.org "disappears" it from their corresponding records/copies.
As long as that's true, you can't really view it as a permanent, unbiased archive.
As politicians, commercial interests, and their lawyers continue to have a field day constraining "online rights" (and IP rights, and etc.), currently the only "guarantee" the public has of continued access and a more complete historical record is, ironically, local copies.
They say, "History is written by the winners."
Well, unless they can't find the copy you have squirreled away.