Re: Copyright in Public Domain Photos

On Fri, 02 Jul 1999, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/29/99, Robert Panzer <bigbusie[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the case is saying
> > that there is not enough originality in a photograph of a two-
> > dimensional work of art (regardless of copyright status of the work)
> > to have a copyright of its own, derivative or not.
>
> The case does not say this. The court found that a photograph shot by a
> photographer whose goal was to copy a painting as faithfully as possible
> is insufficiently original to be copyrightable:
>
> "[A] photograph which is no more than a copy of the work of another
> as exact as science and technology permit lacks originality."

With this in view, would it be reasonable save to conclude that also a digitization of this photograph will not be copyrightable? Some museums now produce CD-Roms of their (PD) collections, and claim copyright on the scans of photographs of their collection. They also add visible or invisible watermarks to the materials to put force to their claims.

Jeroen Hellingman
<jehe[_at_]kabelfoon.nl> Received on Sat Jul 03 1999 - 19:45:23 GMT