That is the latest Taylor swift full album streamable from archive.org
For example, you wouldn't be able to use Archive.org's trademarks to advertise public domain work. But Archive.org does not gain hold a copyright over a copy of public domain work
Making a copy of a public domain book does not create an independent claim of copyright to the contents of the book. You can make a case that maybe it should, but it legally does not; that's just not how it works.
Items don't lose their copyright status by being uploaded or stored in the Internet Archive.
Further, that's opposite the entire purpose of Archive.org
Where are you getting this information?
That's 100% not true. Please stop spreading misinformation because you have no idea what you are talking about.
"According to a landmark 1999 federal district court ruling, The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff v. Corel Corporation, 'exact reproductions of public domain artworks are not protected by copyright.'"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-painting...
>"The internet wayback machine is one of the biggest copyright thiefs in my opinion."
Anyways, copyright is weird and complicated and there are many people who don't really understand it. But your theory that archive.org is going to get a copyright on everything they scan and store is not rooted in any sort of legal reality.
If the photo meets the requirement for independent copyright ability, which requires being a distinct creative work, that's true, and for a photo that would often but not always be the case.
For a simple non-transformative digital copy, there's no copyrightable new work and no copyright in such a work.
> What if, in time, the only copy you could get hold of was my copy. My copy would be copyright me and you’d need to wait for it to become public domain before you could use it under your terms
If someone was copying elements that were original in your work of the photograph, true, but if they were merely copying the pubkic domain text of which you had taken a photograph, no, not true at all. Copyright protects your original work.
No.
> For example, if a book published in 1995 is a reprint of a book published in 1900, then it is eligible. However, the onus is on us to prove that it is a reprint, and if it doesn't say on the TP&V that it is a reprint, confirming its eligibility may be impractical.
https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Volunteers%27_FAQ#V...
That is not true.