2 ms·

Here's an IP question: Under what legal arguments can the Rijksmuseum do this? Or, alternatively, how can those museums that do so prevent copies of their work

Here's an IP question: Under what legal arguments can the Rijksmuseum do this? Or, alternatively, how can those museums that do so prevent copies of their works? Copyright? Wouldn't that have expired long ago? Edit: I understand the reasoning behind preventing flash photography of the paintings---it damages them. But that's not really what I'm asking about.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Many works in museums are still under copyright. Art isn't equivalent with "ancient". For photographs of out-of-copyright works, the question if the photo is itself a creative work protected by copyright is answered differently depending on jurisdiction. In the US and, by extension, for Wikimedia Commons, it generally isn't. In some European countries, it is. I would generally subscribe to the idea that such photos are not protected. But it isn't quite as obvious as one might think. Taking high-quality photos of these artworks does involve a lot of work and, on occasion, maybe even creativity. What if I edit the photo afterwards to bring out the details? What if I chose special lighting conditions that interact with the pigments of the specific materials used?