Your comment, anent that, on the site linked, indicates that copyright expires in one year if an infraction is not discovered and complained-about. This is an attribute of Copyright Law I've never heard of and, frankly, rather question.
It's a specific problem of photographic copyright. Unless it was changed in the past couple of years (which I think I would have heard) the way it works for photographs is that copyright is only maintained if
1: the work is registered (there is a $25 fee for registering, I forget what the maximum number of images is which may be combined in one application).
2: any work which isn't registered has to have a copyright declaration (there are GLF provisions which apply to places like flickr and Lj).
3: any work which is published without a declaration is presumed to be either the work of the publisher, or in the public domain. The photographer has one year to find such breaches and either get a declaration of copyright published, or file a claim with the Library of Congress. If neither of those happens, the work goes into the public domain.
Up until, ca. 1990 the time limit was, basically, a month. It was extended to one year.
On a practical basis, the creator can still assert copyright, but if someone can show that something went more than a year without a public assertion of copyright, they can aget out of penalties for violation. Further, if that happens, the work is in the public domain.
I have no idea why photography is so blessed with this exception.
Thanks. I had no idea that photographs were not covered by the same rules as all other intellectual & artistic property (in some ways bad rules, I think, but even so, this discrepancy seems unfair).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:33 am (UTC)1: the work is registered (there is a $25 fee for registering, I forget what the maximum number of images is which may be combined in one application).
2: any work which isn't registered has to have a copyright declaration (there are GLF provisions which apply to places like flickr and Lj).
3: any work which is published without a declaration is presumed to be either the work of the publisher, or in the public domain. The photographer has one year to find such breaches and either get a declaration of copyright published, or file a claim with the Library of Congress. If neither of those happens, the work goes into the public domain.
Up until, ca. 1990 the time limit was, basically, a month. It was extended to one year.
On a practical basis, the creator can still assert copyright, but if someone can show that something went more than a year without a public assertion of copyright, they can aget out of penalties for violation. Further, if that happens, the work is in the public domain.
I have no idea why photography is so blessed with this exception.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 08:35 am (UTC)