Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] License , copyright issues

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] License , copyright issues
  • Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:54:16 -0500

Peter Brink wrote:
> NB! It's the "original" paintings that are in
the PD. Photos of those paintings are (in India) protected "until
sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following
the year in which the photograph is published".

Presumeably, this is under *Indian* law, based on the rest of the quoted post.

Under *US* law, the photographs are "mere reproductions" and cannot be copyrighted in themselves (there is some subtlety here -- this is only true for flat-on photographic reproductions of work, a photograph of the interior of a museum, with paintings on the walls is, of course, copyrightable as a new work).

(Technically a photocopy or lithograph is a photo, too, so you can see the problem if you don't have this definition in principle -- it would effectively destroy the public domain entirely. The sticky question is where exactly to draw the line between a reproduction and an original photograph).

This was decided by a court case only a few years back. I believe that German law agrees with the US decision. UK law appears to go the other way, but I think it's untested in court.

Now why does this matter to you in India?

*Because*, what matters is *what country the photos were taken in*. Photos from a US museum, are public domain if the works they depict are public domain.

This may also be true for Germany and other countries, but I'm not advising you on that -- you'll have to look it up.

2) If you have access to the original works you may take your own
photos...

You always have this option, regardless of the legal question above.

5) While it's true that all the great 16th and 17th century masters
works are not copyright protected, the owners (museums mostly) have
the right to allow or disallow the taking of photographs of the
paintings they own. In effect this means that any reproduction you
may have is protected by a copyright to the photo of the painting.
However, you are (in most cases) free to go to a museum and make your
own reproduction by hand...

This varies by jurisdiction (probably true within the UK, definitely NOT true in the USA).

Wikipedia addresses this, BTW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

So, if you take a savvy approach to where you get your photos, you can do what you want.

HTH,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page