In article ,
lgb wrote:
In article , -
bonomi.com says...
Declaring that, 'from the date of enactment of the new law, and thereafter'
that one can _no_longer_ make copies of that photograph without infringing
on the copyright rights of the photographer is _not_ 'ex post facto'.

Well, we could go round and round with legalisms, but my contention is
that by not stampiong the photos when that was required, the
photographer implicitly refused copyright. Now he, or his estate, has
been given the copyright. Refusing his refusal?

"Not exactly." grin

First off, he didn't "refuse" anything. He neglected to perform a particular
overt act for assertation of certain protections. As a result, _at_that_time_
he did not have the benefit of those protections.

At a later date, the law was changed, so that such protections accrued to
the benefit of the photographer -- as of the date of the law revision, and
going forward from there -- whether or not he had performed the particular
overt action in the past.

Whether or not this was a 'sensible' thing to do is a moot point -- it *is*
the way the law is. grin


I, personally, am of the opinion that the extension of "automatic" copyright
protection to pre-existing works for which no copyright was claimed qualifies
as a *STUPID* peice of legislation. But, it is on the books, and we have to
deal with things on that basis.