[JoeAltmaier]

'Allows'? This was somebody's life's work, sold to somebody else and so on. They can do anything they want with it.

I get it; I'd like to see some of those old photos too. But I didn't spend a lifetime collecting and collating them. So I guess I'll have to settle for what I can pay for now.

[ryukafalz]

Yes, "allows." Copyright lasting as long as it does today is not a natural state of the world; it's a decision that was made by people. If we had the copyright laws today that we had at the founding of the United States, all of these photos would have long since entered the public domain. If we had the copyright laws that we had until 1976, most of them would be.

Many people, myself included, don't believe that copyright should last nearly as long as it does today.

Now, not that this has much to do with the physical collection, of course; physical property is different. But if you can obtain a copy of one of these photos, in my opinion at this point you should be able to do what you want with it.

[BurningFrog]

I don't think "copyright" is the right way to think about a private collection of physical objects.

[ryukafalz]

Not the physical collection itself, of course, but it definitely does apply to this part:

>When Gates moved the collection into the mine, he simultaneously erected a digital paywall, thereby securing the collection across both physical and digital space.

[kbutler]

Or, to rephrase, he created digital copies and made them available, requiring a fee for the service. (Just as bertmann had required fees).

This instance is more an argument in favor of long copyrights than against them, because without copyright, there would have been no bertmann archive to begin with, and without the long copyright, it wouldn't have been preserved and digitized. (See the sorry state of early Hollywood film archives).

That said, I absolutely agree that our current copyright regime is horribly excessive, both in duration and in the hugely abused anti-circumvention provisions.