# Copyright on public domain pictures **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 8, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195 "2004-10-08T14:21:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/1 "2004-10-08T14:21:28Z")
Me pal & I are starting our new business; in order to spice up the product, we’ve been looking into adding classical artwork. Now, the artwork itself is frickin’ long out of copyright. AFAIK, Rembrandt von Rijn ain’t gonna sue. But, as it happens, the only pictures available to us are of course, taken by someone else, who can then claim cetain rights on the gif or jpg. Now, problematically, we don’t have a clue who took these pictures: they’re found all over the net. That would kill the idea. ``` But! AFAIK, if we crop the pictures, export them to another file type and then pdf then, it's perfectly legal to use them; just as taking a picture of someone's painting makes it derivative work, so does our method make ours a derivative work. In any event, they won't be able to determine where we got the pictures. Is this legal and can we sell it online or print? ``` ---
**Author:** ![aaslatten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@aaslatten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aaslatten)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/2 "2004-10-08T14:32:08Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Me pal & I are starting our new business; in order to spice up the product, we’ve been looking into adding classical artwork. Now, the artwork itself is frickin’ long out of copyright. AFAIK, Rembrandt von Rijn ain’t gonna sue. But, as it happens, the only pictures available to us are of course, taken by someone else, who can then claim cetain rights on the gif or jpg. Now, problematically, we don’t have a clue who took these pictures: they’re found all over the net. That would kill the idea. > > ``` > But! > > AFAIK, if we crop the pictures, export them to another file type and then pdf then, it's perfectly legal to use them; just as taking a picture of someone's painting makes it derivative work, so does our method make ours a derivative work. In any event, they won't be able to determine where we got the pictures. Is this legal and can we sell it online or print? > > ``` IANAL, but I don’t think doing this would make it “perfectly legal,” though it might help you avoid detection. Copyright of a photograph of classical artwork would belong to the photographer, as there is the potential for creating new art through angles, perspective, etc. I would think it would be fairly easy and relatively inexpensive to obtain stock photos legally of these same objects. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/3 "2004-10-08T14:43:43Z")
The “angle” is none in any of these cases, though we toss any overexposed pictures. The problem is that our scanner isn’t very good. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/4 "2004-10-08T15:21:21Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Me pal & I are starting our new business; in order to spice up the product, we’ve been looking into adding classical artwork. Now, the artwork itself is frickin’ long out of copyright. AFAIK, Rembrandt von Rijn ain’t gonna sue. But, as it happens, the only pictures available to us are of course, taken by someone else, who can then claim cetain rights on the gif or jpg. Now, problematically, we don’t have a clue who took these pictures: they’re found all over the net. That would kill the idea. > > ``` > But! > > AFAIK, if we crop the pictures, export them to another file type and then pdf then, it's perfectly legal to use them; just as taking a picture of someone's painting makes it derivative work, so does our method make ours a derivative work. In any event, they won't be able to determine where we got the pictures. Is this legal and can we sell it online or print? > > ``` IANAL either, but… While the source artwork is in the public domain, the reproduction of it that you’re copying probably isn’t. And yes, the holder of the copyright of that reproduction has ways of finding out you copied his version. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/5 "2004-10-08T15:26:04Z")
Even if we alter the picture, it’s not allowed? ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/6 "2004-10-08T15:37:02Z")
No. The actual item you’re altering is someone’s photo, which has copyright from the date it was taken, and such copyright is probably still in force. It doesn’t really matter that the subject is ancient. OTOH, I believe that you’re perfectly free to take your own photo of the artwork and modify it as you see fit. (Which is why the museums tend to prohibit professional photography, go figure.) ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/7 "2004-10-08T15:43:44Z")
Drat, well then, what do I do? I can’t go take photos of musum peices across the entire US and Europe? Thus far I’ve got stuff by: Boudin Bricher Bierstadt Bazille William Beard Bodner Bougereau Bradford Bronzino Breugal Burne Jones Bungo Sakuma Boticelli Birch Bischoff and that doesn’t even cover the ones who last names don’t start with “B”! I don’t even know who I could email to request the use of the photo. I expect they might be willing to let me; maybe not, I don’t know. Paying people to illustrate takes money, which I am loath to spend, especially when I don’t know anyone to draw for us. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/8 "2004-10-08T16:17:12Z")
As an artist, I’m very sensitive to the issue of people ripping off other people’s work. What you’re saying is that you’ve got an idea that may be illegal and probably is unethical, and you’re looking to get around all that. Do your own art, or pay someone else for the right to use theirs. If you won’t or can’t, then come up with a better idea that doesn’t exploit anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/9 "2004-10-08T16:17:45Z")
Take **aaslatten** ’s suggestion and use stock photos. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/10 "2004-10-08T16:48:34Z")
> [@](#): > > As an artist, I’m very sensitive to the issue of people ripping off other people’s work. What you’re saying is that you’ve got an idea that may be illegal and probably is unethical, and you’re looking to get around all that. 1. They’re dead. It’s not like I’m trying to steal copyright from Jimmy down the block. 2. The Entire Purpose ™ of this thread is to find out if it will be legal and if so, how it can be legal. You obviouslky weren’t reading when I asked about that whole legality bit. 3. No, I don’t consider taking some gif some fool scanned from a grainy photo he picked up in an art book wrong; whether it is legal or not is another question. Anyway, I’ll check some government databases and see if they have some scans since any photos they have are public domain, being owned by the public. And the stock books. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/11 "2004-10-08T17:08:40Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Even if we alter the picture, it’s not allowed? I think you’d have to alter it enough for it to be fairly considered a “derivative work” (like making it part of an artistic collage) and not just a cropped copy. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/12 "2004-10-08T19:46:19Z")
What would be enough to make something a collage, and as such a new work of art? If for instance you took possibly copywrited images of several portraits, photoshopped them so they are all just heads of the same size, and then used them to form a croud scene using non discript bodies, would that be sufficient? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/13 "2004-10-08T19:48:38Z")
All of my “museum and art law” materials are in storage, but when I get home, I can look up the mini-paper that I wrote on this very subject and give you something of a skinny. In brief, I can tell you this: when dealing with something out of copyright and a photograph thereof, the more accurate the photograph is, the less protectible it is. At least one court decided, as I recall, that the making of slavish copies, no matter how difficult, does not contribute originality and thus is not protected by copyright. But don’t take that as gospel until I can get the actual paper, mmkay? ---
**Author:** ![Sxyzzx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sxyzzx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sxyzzx)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/14 "2004-10-08T20:08:25Z")
You are probably in the clear. In Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel (1999), it was ruled that slavish reproductions of public domain 2-D artwork are not copyrightable. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/15 "2004-10-08T23:45:14Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Drat, well then, what do I do? I can’t go take photos of musum peices across the entire US and Europe? And later > [@](#): > > No, I don’t consider taking some gif some fool scanned from a grainy photo he picked up in an art book wrong; whether it is legal or not is another question. So your question is, because you can’t take the time and expense to get a rights-free reproduction of the work, you want to know if it’s legal to copy the work of someone who did get the rights? I also endorse **aaslatten** ’s suggestion on using stock photography. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/16 "2004-10-09T00:22:42Z")
I’ve posted at-length, numerous times on this, and on the impact of Bridgeman. The truth is, **you are almost certainly in the clear** if you use a picture, scan, photo, or other reproduction of a **2-dimensional** public domain work, provided no original content or derivative work is at play. A simple reproduction of a public domain work is still public domain, and Bridgeman has never been challenged. In addition, it is the “general feel” of many people who are actual lawyers who wrote articles on Bridgeman ex post facto that it was a proper ruling that would be upheld by the USSC should it ever be taken there. This is a subject that infuriates me when people continue to think that everything and anything is copyrighted by slavish effort alone. In fact, I really wish people would not post their opinions of what is legal or not on this Message Board if they haven’t even heard of Bridgeman, the single most important case impacting this issue in the history of the Unites States. Let me share once again key points of Bridgeman: > [@](#): > > …under the rulings of the United States District Court in BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y., 1999), wherein it was found that: > > > [@](#): > > > > “a copy in a new medium is copyrightable only where, as often but not always is the case, the copier makes some identifiable original contribution. In the words of the Privy Council in Interlogo AG, “there must . . . be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work.”…“it is uncontested that Bridgeman’s images are substantially exact reproductions of public domain works, albeit in a different medium.”…There has been no suggestion that they vary significantly from the underlying works. In consequence, the change of medium is immaterial.” > > (Emphasis added) > In other words, don’t try to claim that you own a copyright on a 200-year old work because you slapped down an art book and scanned it. Or took a photo at the local museum. Or put a scan on your website and think that you “own” the scan exclusively. In fact, according to the referenced US Code in Bridgeman: > > > [@](#): > > > > § 507. Limitations on actions > > © Fraudulent Copyright Notice.-Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. Please note as well that a collection of PD works may itself be copyrightable as a complete collection: > [@](#): > > § 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works > (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. > > (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. Bridgeman was an odd case in that it applied the laws of two countries in the final decision, but the court said it would have found the same if it had just applied the laws of the US. This is all online, easily Googlable. Note the following: - Bridgeman only applies to reproductions of 2D works, not photos of 3D works, such as statues. - it can only be used as a defense in the US. - It DOES NOT prevent some dipshit from harassing you, threatening you, or even suing you over alleged “copyright infringement”. Anyone can pretty much sue you for anything, after all, regardless of whether it’s “right” or not. - Slavish copying does not create copyright. Think about it logically - if your purpose in taking a photo or making a scan is to accurately reproduce the original creative content as closely as possible, then…by definition, you are not adding your own creative input. Photographers tend to think that every time they click the button they are creating a new and profound work that is inviolate in its originality. Too bad the courts don’t agree. I advise anyone who wants to argue this to Search on this Board first, then Google a bit, and read USENET a bit, before covering the same ground. Please also note that IME scads of libraries, galleries, and online collections will claim that all scans are “copyright” of them. Well, I can claim my cat’s pawprints are copyrighted, it doesn’t necessarily make it true. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/17 "2004-10-09T00:35:33Z")
Also note Bridgeman does not prevent people on a message board from insinuating that you’re a thief or potential criminal - or giving you wrong advice and unintentionally making you into one. So don’t take my word for it as The Truth if you’re thinking of starting a business. Google on Bridgeman, Search for other threads on this Board, follow the resources and links, ask a lawyer, and see for yourself. I have asked several lawyers online for their interpretation of Bridgeman, as well as an IP lawyer IRL whom I work with, and all of them have agreed with me that Bridgeman is unambiguous and likely unchallengeable in the US, and that it should be a very powerful defense. I did this because my UnaLouvre has nearly 3000 Public Domain works on display, and I needed to know that I was in the clear before I underwent that effort. And like I said, it’s just common sense. If your purpose is to make an accurate reproduction of a PD work that maintains _all possible original creativity_, then _by definition_ it is slavish copying, which is not copyrighted. This does piss off some photographers, and people that don’t believe in the whole letter and spirit of “Public Domain”, but that’s not really something I can help, nor that I care about. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/18 "2004-10-09T00:47:41Z")
Some links: [http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html](http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html) [http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html](http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html) > **[Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation)** > > Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is copyrightable under US law is orig... [http://www.photosource.com/news/nwfeb99b.html](http://www.photosource.com/news/nwfeb99b.html) Here’s a link in the UK which doesn’t think much of the case. Of course, being the UK, it’s a moot point, so really their entire article boils down to “It doesn’t affect us since we’re not in the US”. I love their use of dismissive “doubtful authority”… [http://www.mda.org.uk/mcopyg/bridge.htm](http://www.mda.org.uk/mcopyg/bridge.htm) Here’s a fairly reasoned discussion, which agrees with my points, and in fact looks for ways to do an end-run around it by use of “click-through” licenses, something I also know a bit about (and I feel they are wrong and their ideas would be uneforceable, but that’s a different topic). > **[The Public Domain, Digitization, and Copyright](https://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2004/07/the_public_doma.html)** > > Dr. Klaus Graf, the author of the useful Archivalia blog and a the maintainer of the extensive German site on museum law and cultural property, has supplied an interesting comment on my post on Copyright Term and the Public Domain... ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/19 "2004-10-09T01:19:40Z")
I found a link that might be helpful: [http://cobrands.business.findlaw.com/intellectual\_property/nolo/auntie/9A0CBFD6-729C-4691-A08AD659330277D8.html](http://cobrands.business.findlaw.com/intellectual_property/nolo/auntie/9A0CBFD6-729C-4691-A08AD659330277D8.html) My summary of above: maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195/20 "2004-10-09T01:41:36Z")
Your link is interesting, and appears to agree with my positive assertions and supporting links. Respectfully, I’m uncertain why your opinion is “maybe”…is there another issue or aspect which hasn’t been properly brought up, or which is incorrect? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-on-public-domain-pictures/268195.md?page=2)