Google To Host 10M Images From Life Magazine's Archive

CWmike and other readers alerted us to Google's announcement that it was making available 10 million images from Life magazine's archives dating back to the 1750s. (Most of the news accounts covering this announcement refer to Life's "photos," and none mention that photography wasn't invented until early in the 19th century.) Only a small percentage of the images — including newly digitized images from photos and etchings — have even been published. The rest have been "sitting in dusty archives in the form of negatives, slides, glass plates, etchings, and prints." At this point about 20% of Life's archive is online; the rest is promised within months.

Comments

Public domain?

[Yvan256]

I wonder was the copyright is for these. Are they all public domain?

Re:Public domain?

[game kid]

This image, among others, claims "© Time Inc." despite its 1860 date, so I wouldn't be quick to call the new archive a gift. They clearly want to (re)assert copyright on the pics.

Re:Public domain?

[Artraze]

Yes and no.

They are public domain in so far as the originals are long out of copyright. Any magazine you had dated prior to about 1920 (I forget the exact year) has fallen into the public domain and you'd be free to post articles. However, derivative works, namely the scans/data in this case, are probably recent enough to still be under copyright. Yes, they would probably be considered to be insufficiently distinct to be true "derivative works" with a separate copyright, but proving that would require a costly legal battle.

Re:Public domain?

[LordSnooty]

Most interestingly, they even try to exert copyright on pictures taken on the moon... so are these reproductions from the magazine and thus copyrightable in some way?

Re:Public domain?

[bcrowell]

The decision was based on both US and UK copyright law.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was a U.S. court decision. It's not a precedent affecting the U.K. I have a web site with my free physics textbooks, and I've received nastygrams from a U.K. museum about a contemporary portrait of Isaac Newton that's reproduced on my site. I didn't worry much about it, because I'm in the U.S., but they and their lawyers did seem to believe that the law was on their side in the U.K. (or maybe they were just bluffing). The WP article has some specific discussion of this at the end.

Good for comparison

[powerlord]

Its good to know we can compare what the market looked like when the crash finally happens.

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

I've failed to find a link to detail this (maybe someone else can because I'd like to know more) but in a history class we told that during WWI images were transmitted to newspapers around the world digitally via telegraph.

I believe this was done manually with some type of grid overlay and a person assigning a grey value to each grid location. At the receiving end these values would correspond to a dot sizes that could represent various levels of grey.

I'd like to see some practical example if anyone knows more about this process.

You've missed it

[symbolset]

Stories that are told that are retold become our culture. If the stories are owned and cannot be retold they might be lucrative, but they can't become culture. Copyright is the theft of culture from the future. Copyright must be abolished because as implemented it prevents the fair use of works long in the public domain.

This is a good place to thank Larry for keeping up the good fight. God Bless you Larry, I hope you win and I'm glad to continue to donate to your cause.