They probably took their own photo of the art. They own the copyright of their particular photo, not the copyright of the original image. As to whether they pay royalties to the image owner is something else...
Happens all the time with stock photography. They play fast and loose with imagery, as the copyright laws are less than obvious sometimes. As Looey says, if they photograph it as an object, then they can licence the photograph out as theirs, but not the actual content, which is technically someone else's intellectual property. But then, given its age, its probably over 50 years old and the initial copyright - if the image was at all - has expired.
They probably took their own photo of the art. They own the copyright of their particular photo, not the copyright of the original image. As to whether they pay royalties to the image owner is something else...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.quora.com/How-can-Getty-Images-charge-for-public-domain-photos
Fascinating Looey. JR21 was part of Gerry Anderson's organisation so I suppose his son Jamie owns the copyright of the original art, if anyone does?
DeleteHappens all the time with stock photography. They play fast and loose with imagery, as the copyright laws are less than obvious sometimes. As Looey says, if they photograph it as an object, then they can licence the photograph out as theirs, but not the actual content, which is technically someone else's intellectual property. But then, given its age, its probably over 50 years old and the initial copyright - if the image was at all - has expired.
ReplyDeleteSo is an old copyrightless image like this box art the same as it being in the public domain?
Delete