3 ms·
I've wondered about things like this. I once bought a print from the Getty Museum of a painting by Gerrit Dou (done in the late 1650s), and the Getty had a cop
by splat 16y ago
I've wondered about things like this. I once bought a print from the Getty Museum of a painting by Gerrit Dou (done in the late 1650s), and the Getty had a copyright notice on the back. Obviously anyone can reproduce the original, but is the Getty trying to claim that no one can make reproductions of their reproduction?
- ig1 16y agoBridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is normally regarded as the definitive answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_....
- starkness 16y agoThere is actually a debate as to whether photographs of paintings in the public domain can be copyrighted. The current consensus in the US appears to be no. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_.... If it was a print of the painting, it would depend upon whether a court would construe that it had sufficient originality to be a derivative work. But that wouldn't stop Getty from trying to assert copyright.
- Someone 16y agoI would guess that, if you tried, you would discover that that 'anyone can reproduce the original' is not quite true. For example, the Getty site says: Handheld and video cameras using existing light are welcome in the permanent collection galleries. Please check at the entrance of the changing exhibitions for any restrictions in those galleries. Flash photography, tripods, and monopods are not permitted. Those limitations make making a good reproduction a challenge. As to your question: they are probably asserting the copyright on the photograph itself, not on what it depicts. That is perfectly OK. If that weren't possible, press photographers would have a hard time making a living.