Wikipedia believes faithful reproductions (i.e., scans) of 2-d public domain work to also be in the public domain [1]. If that interpretation is correct, then

Wikipedia believes faithful reproductions (i.e., scans) of 2-d public domain work to also be in the public domain [1]. If that interpretation is correct, then the Met's licensing restrictions--at least for their scans of paintings and the like--are just hot air, and perhaps dishonest/opportunist hot air at that. Don't get me wrong, I'm incredibly grateful they're making available such an important cultural trove, but this whole "intellectual property" madness that's gripping our society is a modern tragedy. I don't know how the Met can demand licensing terms for a scan of a 3000-year-old hieroglyph with a straight face, especially since their mission statement claims they operate in service to the public [2]. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_p... [2] http://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-museum/mission-statement http://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-museum/mission-statement