Hacker News Reader

Comment by thatguy0900 | Hacker News Reader

Weren't they purchased from the bank after the studio was foreclosed on by the mayor for 5$? How can it be anyone else's property after that?

View on HN

Maybe the argument is that the bank never had the right to sell the copyright in the first place?

The whole story just reeks of greed to me. My personal opinion is that the photos should be in the public domain.

America's copyright system is so broken and stupid, it's pathetic.

> In 1976, an overhaul of the Copyright Act enshrined stronger protections. Today, artists generally receive copyrights to their works by default; after they die, the protections pass to their heirs for seventy years. During that period, whether you’ve purchased a negative for pennies at an estate sale or a print for millions at Christie’s, simply owning a physical image does not entitle you to reproduce it in any form.

Well, the mayor that bought it, did before such law. His rights to the photos should be considered according to the law that was "available" at the time.

IANAL, but the publication of the work is when the copyright timer starts under the '76 act IIRC. However, and this is a big however, because the (re)publisher is not the artist and the pre '76 act did not have automatic default copyright; there is a VERY good argument that it's either public domain or falls under Arkansas local copyright law (which I don't know anything about). I'd say the heirs have a tenuous federal claim at best (again, not a lawyer). But they may have better luck in state court due to common law rulings. Either way it's likely to turn into an expensive hot mess.

Ownership of the plates and ownership of the copyrights are separate issues. Did the bank legally own everything in the shop when the building was about to be torn down? If you could argue they didn't (and a lawyer would) then the sale to mayor would not be valid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com