This always gets me I am looking at historic images of trains and see some bull crap about this image is "owned by" or "from the collection of" "and may not be used without written consent" Case and point https://californiarevealed.org/do/f625b ... fae#page/1 The thing is if the image is from before 1925 then it is public domain and I am free to slap it on shirts and coffee mugs and sell it to my hearts content. /rant

Congratulations.

You've just made the rational case for every online archive to remove, or not post, any imagery pre-1925. I am aware of archives that won't post such work in their collections, on a website or social media, because of people like you.

The fact remains that collections can retain overall copyright and rights restrictions. You and everyone else have access to that photograph online ONLY because of the curation work of both the CSRM and the prior owners of the collection from which it came.

You are free to download that picture, colorize it, and throw it in a frame and hang it on YOUR wall. But when you attempt to commercially sell that picture or reproduce it for mass sale to others (such as in a book or on a poster or art print), you are effectively claiming to be selling "intellectual property," property that is not yours. The CSRM (or whatever archive) asserts control over the collection and its items, and therefore your commercial reproduction. (The one notable exception to this is the Library of Congress and their collections of photos, prints, etc.)

Without in part the income, however meager, from selling rights to such works (plus billing for the costs associated with photo research, archival storage, scanning, etc.), there is no motivation for a museum or library to even keep such collections. These are the photos that grace the documentaries on PBS, network TV, etc. and fill books from bargain-table "remainders" to the best history books out there.

It is true that the vast majority of such "piracy"--a few trinkets on Etsy, a couple crafts at the flea market--are too trivial to take action against. But you only need one bestseller album cover, one bestseller book cover, or a successful poster in WalMart or Michaels, and then serious money can be involved.

You don't like their terms? Go find your own century-old photos, then.

One more thing.... If you copy anything from the web, do know that those entire websites are copyrighted, contents included as derivative works, and you're fair game if caught. Your only out would be a fair use claim and that won't stand unless it meets certain conditions.

I have defended and will continue to defend my copyrights. So be very careful as others do too.

Okay. So, reread the first paragraph of my first post. Pay particularly close attention to the last sentence of that first paragraph.

As a musician, a graphic artist and webmaster that at times works with old images, I know copyright law. You are correct if the digital copy is a direct copy. However, not compensating the organization that took the time and absorbed the costs to digitize the recording and your using, or worse yet, posting the recording for others to copy without compensation to those that did the work is total bullshit. If you want to do the right thing, either find your own Edison cylinder and digitize it or compensate and agree to the terms offered by the archivist.

I didn't have a reason to dislike you before, but I may now.

Just remember that the public domain is literally a constitutional right.

The Copyright Act of 1790 (since superseded by other Acts) is not the Constitution.

Copyright law is one of those things that far too many people think they know...
But dont.
People think they can randomly copyright photos others own (such as the idiot group which copyrighted a photo Id emailed them) as well as the masses who ridiculously misinterpret fair use...