3 ms·

Even if the artwork is in the public domain, the photo of the artwork that someone takes still has a copyright and you need permission to use it.

by imgabe 3y ago

VanTheBrand 3y ago
That’s jurisdiction dependent. For example it’s not longer the case in the UK. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/29/court-of-appeal-ruling-will-prevent-uk-museums-from-charging-reproduction-feesat-last https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/29/court-of-appeal-r...
ronsor 3y ago
This is not true in the US.
- nemo 3y ago
  Under U.S. copyright law, the person who creates a work is the copyright owner. So if a photographer takes a picture of an artwork, they own the rights to their image. Read more here: https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists/ https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists/
  - autoexec 3y ago
    A photo of a public domain work doesn't generally count as "creating a work". Especially not when there's nothing artistic added or any additional context to it. If I just take a photo of an artwork that's already in the public domain it is essentially little more than a reproduction.
  - sgentle 3y ago
    You might find it helpful to refer to the Copyright Office's Compendium, which covers copyright law specifics in more detail. It's big, but quite approachable. Chapter 300 covers copyrightability in general: https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-auth... > 313.4(A): A work that is a mere copy of another work of authorship is not copyrightable. The Office cannot register a work that has been merely copied from another work of authorship without any additional original authorship. [...] Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("exact photographic copies of public domain works of art would not be copyrightable under United States law because they are not original"). Chapter 900 covers visual art specifically and goes into more detail on the copyrightability of photographs: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf > 909.3(A): [...] A photograph that is merely a "slavish copy" of a painting, drawing, or other public domain or copyrighted work is not eligible for registration. The registration specialist will refuse a claim if it is clear that the photographer merely used the camera to copy the source work without adding any creative expression to the photo. Similarly, merely scanning and digitizing existing works does not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to warrant copyright protection.
  - mediumsmart 3y ago
    But the photo needs to be taken at a weird angle and it helps to place a live squirrel somewhere on the artwork.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Copyright only protects creative works, where the author's artistic intent can be distinguished. Faithful reproductions of non-copyrighted two-dimensional work are considered non-copyrightable, because nothing of artistic value is added in the process. (There is a lot of mechanical work around photos, but mechanical work doesn't enjoy copyright.)
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Right. Just because something is a lot of work ("sweat of the brow"), doesn't make it copyrightable in the US. Feist is one of the main cases in thiss area as I understand it.
CrazyStat 3y ago
This is not true in the US. The most relevant case is Bridgeman v. Corel [1], ruling that photographic reproductions of public domain paintings could not be copyrighted. Museums like to pretend that they hold copyrights on these photos. They do not. (In the US). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel....
- imgabe 3y ago
  In practice, you still need the museum's cooperation to do anything commercial with it, for most people who don't have the resources to defend a lawsuit.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    More importantly, even though you can't copyright a photo/scan of a public domain work you also don't have to share those images with others at all, you could still paywall them off and (arguably) impose additional restrictions as a condition of getting access, and you certainly don't have to host the files online for everyone like this.
    - ufocia 3y ago
      Yes, you could physically and contractually prohibit others from copying the original work.
      - dtech 3y ago
        Could you though? Once you have a good image if it isn't copyrighted it sounds like any licencing agreement is void. You could just distribute not under terms of the license, but as a public domain images.
  - Animats 3y ago
    Wikipedia has assumed, since Bridgeman vs. Corel, that images of public domain works are public domain. Once some portrait museum in the UK threatened to sue, but backed down quickly.

Even if the artwork is in the public domain, the photo of the artwork that someone takes still has a copyright and you need permission to use it.

by imgabe 3y ago

Even if the artwork is in the public domain, the photo of the artwork that someone takes still has a copyright and you need permission to use it.

VanTheBrand 3y ago

That’s jurisdiction dependent. For example it’s not longer the case in the UK. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/29/court-of-appeal-ruling-will-prevent-uk-museums-from-charging-reproduction-feesat-last https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/29/court-of-appeal-r...

ronsor 3y ago

This is not true in the US.

nemo 3y ago
Under U.S. copyright law, the person who creates a work is the copyright owner. So if a photographer takes a picture of an artwork, they own the rights to their image. Read more here: https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists/ https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists/
- autoexec 3y ago
  A photo of a public domain work doesn't generally count as "creating a work". Especially not when there's nothing artistic added or any additional context to it. If I just take a photo of an artwork that's already in the public domain it is essentially little more than a reproduction.
- sgentle 3y ago
  You might find it helpful to refer to the Copyright Office's Compendium, which covers copyright law specifics in more detail. It's big, but quite approachable. Chapter 300 covers copyrightability in general: https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-auth... > 313.4(A): A work that is a mere copy of another work of authorship is not copyrightable. The Office cannot register a work that has been merely copied from another work of authorship without any additional original authorship. [...] Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("exact photographic copies of public domain works of art would not be copyrightable under United States law because they are not original"). Chapter 900 covers visual art specifically and goes into more detail on the copyrightability of photographs: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf > 909.3(A): [...] A photograph that is merely a "slavish copy" of a painting, drawing, or other public domain or copyrighted work is not eligible for registration. The registration specialist will refuse a claim if it is clear that the photographer merely used the camera to copy the source work without adding any creative expression to the photo. Similarly, merely scanning and digitizing existing works does not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to warrant copyright protection.
- mediumsmart 3y ago
  But the photo needs to be taken at a weird angle and it helps to place a live squirrel somewhere on the artwork.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Copyright only protects creative works, where the author's artistic intent can be distinguished. Faithful reproductions of non-copyrighted two-dimensional work are considered non-copyrightable, because nothing of artistic value is added in the process. (There is a lot of mechanical work around photos, but mechanical work doesn't enjoy copyright.)
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Right. Just because something is a lot of work ("sweat of the brow"), doesn't make it copyrightable in the US. Feist is one of the main cases in thiss area as I understand it.

CrazyStat 3y ago

This is not true in the US. The most relevant case is Bridgeman v. Corel [1], ruling that photographic reproductions of public domain paintings could not be copyrighted. Museums like to pretend that they hold copyrights on these photos. They do not. (In the US). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel....

imgabe 3y ago
In practice, you still need the museum's cooperation to do anything commercial with it, for most people who don't have the resources to defend a lawsuit.
- autoexec 3y ago
  More importantly, even though you can't copyright a photo/scan of a public domain work you also don't have to share those images with others at all, you could still paywall them off and (arguably) impose additional restrictions as a condition of getting access, and you certainly don't have to host the files online for everyone like this.
  - ufocia 3y ago
    Yes, you could physically and contractually prohibit others from copying the original work.
    - dtech 3y ago
      Could you though? Once you have a good image if it isn't copyrighted it sounds like any licencing agreement is void. You could just distribute not under terms of the license, but as a public domain images.
- Animats 3y ago
  Wikipedia has assumed, since Bridgeman vs. Corel, that images of public domain works are public domain. Once some portrait museum in the UK threatened to sue, but backed down quickly.