On 7/16/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is> wrote:
And if the angry guy with the website really
held a license for the picture he'd probably
state its source and author somewhere and not
just froth at the mouth when asked.
He probably feels he *owns* the picture since
he scanned it in or some such.
On reflection, this may actually be true. The Mona Lisa itself is long
out of copyright, but if you take a photograph of it, then you hold
copyright over that specific photographic image. That's how art
galleries protect their images of the pantings they own. You can't
just go to the Louvre's website and use their image of the Mona Lisa.
Some galleries ban photography for this reason (as well as the fact
that flashes may damage the painting, especially watercolours).
How did this bloke get his copy of the image? If the subject expired
in 1935, then very probably he found a printed source and scanned it
in. In that case, he may well have a valid claim.
--
Pete, wondering if royalty can be a subject