Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>]

Terry Hancock skrev:
> 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).
< snip >
> 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.

Sorry, but this is not correct. A work that is PD in the US might still 
be copyright protected elsewhere. The amount of copyright protection a 
work has depends upon where that protection is asserted. This means that 
a US museum might claim copyright protection for their photos in (for 
example) Sweden, even if those photos lacks copyright protection in the US.

/Peter Brink