On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Klaus Graf ha scritto:
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's
statement in this list
("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of
two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than
reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing
purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was
adressed on a Wikisource case)
See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs…
We should not accept such nonsense.
Klaus Graf
Bridgeman vs. Corel only applies to reproductions made in the US of 2D
works. For example, if someone takes a photograph in a State Museum in
Italy, the copyright on that photograph belong to the photographer and
to the museum (that's an Italian peculiarity) and by no means it can be
uploaded as PD-art.
Cruccone
Strictly speaking it is not a question of where the photograph was made, but
where is the photograph is being published. Anyone who takes a photograph
of a public domain work, whether in an Italian Museum or anywhere else, and
publishes that image in the US would still be subject to Bridgeman v. Corel
within the US. Similarly, someone who creates a photograph in the US, but
publishes that photo in Italy would still be able to assert copyright under
Italian law.
-Robert Rohde