[WikiEN-l] copyright on old paintings

Sun Aug 24 19:28:29 UTC 2003

Steve Vertigum wrote:

>LOL. How can it be proved that photograph x came from
>source n?  If its the exact same size, and the color
>histogram matches etc... it might be legally sound. 
>
>But simply changing a size doesnt wipe the tracks
>completely, and the obvious issue is do we actually
>need to *cite a source for all our material -- to
>prove that it didnt come from source n, by having
>proof that it did come from source p...  Is there any
>clarity, dear copyright gurus, on this particular
>distinction? Isnt this a case where altering images
>(even a little) could be standard protocol to cover
>this particular track?
>
>--- daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
>>It's not the painting that is copyrighted but the
>>photgraph of the painting. 
>>Unless the book is from before 1923, I would not
>>suggest it. 
>>
I would be inclined to favour the position that a point and click 
reproduction of a famous out of original copyright painting is not 
copyrightable because it does not add anything original to the painting.  

What's the case law on this sort of thing?

Ec