# Public domain images **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 14, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-domain-images/606192 "2011-12-14T17:08:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-domain-images/606192/1 "2011-12-14T17:08:54Z")
I have been using a graphics program (Pixarra) to manipulate images, mainly painting, drawings, etc. A number of people have expressed a desire to buy some of these. I have no problem selling these one at a time to friends, however, some of them are fairly new and are copyrighted, but I don’t know which. How can I find out if an image is in the public domain or is copyrighted? I have heard different things like a 50yr. statute, a 70yr. copyright, etc. But I don’t think I could do the Mona Lisa or things like that without violating this law. Don’t know for sure, but I need to have a way to find out before I start in on them. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2011, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-domain-images/606192/2 "2011-12-14T17:37:04Z")
Images created before 1923 are now in the public domain. However, a particular _photograph_ of such an image may not be. One of the current issues in copyright law is whether a museum’s photo of the Mona Lisa is something it can copyright. For images more recent than 1923 there is no easy way to find out. You must try to determine the creator of the image and any entities to which he might have transferred copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Cartoonacy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/848f3c/32.png) [@Cartoonacy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartoonacy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-domain-images/606192/3 "2011-12-14T22:30:18Z")
[Here’s a handy chart.](http://www.sunsteinlaw.com/practices/copyright-portfolio-development/flowchart.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-domain-images/606192/4 "2011-12-15T01:26:34Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > One of the current issues in copyright law is whether a museum’s photo of the Mona Lisa is something it can copyright. What? Someone is challenging _Bridgeman v Corel_? Or is this more like “That photograph is a unique work of art because the photographer chose to stand _here_ instead of _there_?” ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-domain-images/606192/5 "2011-12-15T04:51:55Z")
I didn’t think all the museums around the country had yet thrown in the towel. I might be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-domain-images/606192/6 "2011-12-15T05:40:54Z")
IIRC Sony tried to claim it owned the rights to the Sistine Chapel. (Actually, they were a major contributor to removing the years of accumulated crud from the ceiling paintings. Somehwere in this restoration was a deal with the Vatican over image rights). ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-domain-images/606192/7 "2011-12-15T07:09:09Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > I didn’t think all the museums around the country had yet thrown in the towel. I might be wrong. I haven’t heard anything about anyone wanting to challenge _Bridgeman_. Anyway, it depends on what you mean by photograph; if it’s something that’s essentially a scan, with no new creative spark, _Bridgeman_ says it does not create a new copyright. If the museum hired someone to take a picture of the painting in context, that would, and, presumably, the museum would own the copyright (as it would be a work for hire). ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-domain-images/606192/8 "2011-12-15T13:54:27Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > I haven’t heard anything about anyone wanting to challenge _Bridgeman_. > > Anyway, it depends on what you mean by photograph; if it’s something that’s essentially a scan, with no new creative spark, _Bridgeman_ says it does not create a new copyright. If the museum hired someone to take a picture of the painting in context, that would, and, presumably, the museum would own the copyright (as it would be a work for hire). I think that’s the point. They don’t want someone copying the photo they paid for. You can take your own, but you can’t scan theirs.