Ordinary pictures of out of copyright paintings remain in the public domain,
after all, a photograph is just a copy. The usual issue arises when you
attempt to photograph the picture itself while it is in a venue controled by
its owner or licensee who may attempt to impose restrictions on what you may
do while you are in the space.
Fred
From: Robin Shannon <robin.shannon(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Robin Shannon <robin.shannon(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:39:31 +1100
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Painting copyright
The copyright on the paintings of the great masters are obviously all
well out of date, however, does this mean that straight photos of
these are uncopyrightable? Or are they like translations of the
classics which are copyrightable. It just seems that not enough has
been down by taking a photo (or photocopying or scanning or however
the hell it is that art galleries make thier pictures of paintings) to
really justify calling it a new work in its own right.
Anyone know the answer? Even any unqualified people want to take a
stab at guessing the answer?
Also if they are copyrightable, does anyone know of any place where
there are PD/open license pics of the works of the great masters?
Paz, amor y Papá Noel,
rjs,
[[User:The bellman]]
--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade(a)jabber.zim.net.au
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l