Re: Re: Public Domain Images

'Twas brillig when Robert F. Bodi scrobe:
> Just because somebody says the material is public domain does NOT make it
> so. Further, the image may be public domain, but the electronic version may
> be a derivative work that has a separate copyright. Thus, if I go take a
> photo of a Picasso, I might get a copyright in that photo even though the
> Picasso is public domain.

You might only get a copy in a different medium, not an copyrightable work. Your copyright interest in the photo extends only to original elements present in your photograph. A full on shot of the entire work with uniform, white lighting should not generate any additional copyright in the resulting photo.

> However, if they really said that the material was public domain, and had no
> copyright notices, they may have forfeited their rights under U.S. law.
> This may be a true example of an innocence defense in copyright.

I could imagine someone claiming copyright in a scan of a 19th C. Robert Nast cartoon which has long been in the public domain. I don't believe that there is anything copyrightable in such a digital work. I can even imagine someone editing a few pixels by hand in order to make a deliberate "error" in order to catch copyiers.

There are copyright scams based on less.

-- 
Roy Murphy      \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses
murphy@panix.com \  http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html