I have asked questions about the validity of copyrights on photographs and scans of public domain images a few times in the past here. And I have received some conflicting information, from lawyers, on both sides.
Because this is long, I will highlight my GQ’s in red.
It comes down to my whole “copyright dilemma”, which I will summarize for those who are bored of seeing it again:
But examine this case, BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
In summary, the court seems to have found that taking a photograph of a 2-dimensional artwork is not sufficient to generate a new copyright. In fact, by extension, it seems to say that scanning the photograph and creating a JPG from it also does not create a new copyright.
Thus, those people who try to claim copyright on scans of 200-year old artworks with Full Righteous Indignation seem to be mistaken.
Also interesting is a footnote in another analysis of this ruling is that those who claim copyright on digital scans of public domain works may be falling afoul of criminal provisions of the copyright act, by falsely asserting a copyright.
I don’t know if that is true, as I was told here on the SDMB in the past that it was “not a crime to assert a copyright where no right existed, only to infringe on a copyright”.
My questions:
-
Because I am a bit ignorant of these sorts of civil cases, to what extent can I use this ruling as a defense for building my online art gallery of public domain (more than 100-year old) works? (assume Kansas as the jurisdiction)
-
Am I reading the results of this case properly?
-
If some arrogant person mails me and says they have “copyright” over a 600-year old Heironymous Bosch painting because they “scanned it from a book” (ignoring the fact that by their own fluid definition of “copyright”, they themselves are guilty of infringement :rolleyes: ), have they falsely assserted a claim of copyright? Have they committed a criminal act, or must there be an intent to defraud?