Copyright laws NZ

RM: Confusing - Yes! It would be nice if we had more laws which showed (by default) what people ~could~ do, rather than just what we shouldn't do.

In the case of copying old photos from books, the issue is not whether one is copying an "old photo" but rather, copying "a reproduction of a photo" from a (copyrighted) book. Those images are different to the original photo because they have been reproduced with the aid of a halftone printing screen. It is also of interest to note that books which reproduce photos often include the source of the photo immediately below the image, and that usually allays any concerns about breach of copyright by interested parties.

So whilst an image may be public property for all to use, the particular formatting of it is not. Of course in real life situations no one cares where a person got an image of the First Australian Prime Minister or "Mona Lisa" if the image has been widely circulated, but if the picture was rare - such as a family photo of the First PM taking a bath, then that might be a different story!

In the case of the 'Mona Lisa' example no publisher would know if it was *their* reproduction which was used-ripped-off or one of a hundred other publishers. If there is no known 'victim' of copyright breach there cannot be a successful legal suit for damages. For example Encyclopaedia Brittanica would be wasting their money by suing a person for reproducing a well known photo of Abraham Lincoln, because the user of the image may have copied it from a different source.

Another point is that whilst an old photo may be in the public arena, it doesn't prevent any person from suing for damages if the publishing of the image is claimed to have caused some sort of damage.

Ray