<p>Someone questioned, Bill Alman, the White House curator who said:<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Generally, the portraits are property of the federal government and
are in the public domain. In the case of the White House portraits, the
photograph of the portrait may have copyright restrictions, but that it
should be generally okay to use the images as long as the publisher of
the electronic image is credited.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem is that for some reason people in the discussion, are
focusing on the fact that copyright and ownership are seperate rights -
and refuse to acknowledge that the curator was clearly identifying the
ownership of both property rights by saying "the portraits are property
of the federal government [ownership of the portraits] and
are in the public domain [copyright status]." <br>
</p>
<p>The curator then showed a very sophisticated understanding of US
copyright law by making a distinction between the copyright in the work
itself (which is in the public domain), and the copyright of a photo
which may or may not be copyrighted depending on your view of the line
of reasoning in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp." title="">Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.</a>
which held that exact photographic copies of public domain images could
not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality.
Where there is signifant originality there would be copyright in the
photograph seperate from the portrait.</p>
<p>The curator seems, very wisely, IMHO, to refrain from giving an
opinion about the copyright of any reproductions (photographs) of the
portraits while drawing the attention to the questioner that this could
be an issue. He even very clearly identifies that the only copyright
issue in question is whether one is claimed by the "publisher of the
electronic image."</p>
<p>Thus, the portraits themselves being properly commissioned by the US
and having the copyright transferred to the US govt - thus becoming
"public domain" as identified by the curator <b>are public domain works</b>. The only issue is whether the photo itself is copyrighted.</p>
<p>This is also resolvable in one of 2 ways:</p>
<ol>
<li>Determination that the photos lack sufficient originality, thus the
photographer can not claim copyright in the photo of a public domain
work (following Bridgeman)</li><li>Assuming that there is sufficient originality, so we need to find
the copyright status of the photo seperate from the one in the
portrait:
<ol><li>If they are photos posted by the US govt and copied to wikipedia
from there - then those are clearly in the public domain as a work of
the US govt.</li><li>If the photo was taken by a contributor - then we should refer to his license in uploading the work.</li></ol>
</li>
</ol>
Personally, my review of the photos in question indicate that they
clearly fall under the Bridgeman decision and the photographer can not
claim a copyright in them as there is not the sufficient originality by
the photographer<br>
<br>
Jim<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/3/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jimmy Wales</b> <<a href="mailto:jwales@wikia.com">jwales@wikia.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I think there is no easy answer. It would be best to contact the exact<br>office or institution which commissioned them and ask for a letter<br>clarifying the copyright status.<br><br>It is possible that the government purchased both the copyright and the
<br>physical object, but also possible that the government merely purchased<br>the physical object.<br><br>Fredrik Josefsson wrote:<br>> This issue has been discussed for a while now. First<br>> on English Wikipedia, now on Commons.
<br>><br>> The discussion on Commons can be found at:<br>> <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Official_paintings_held_by_the_U.S._Government">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Official_paintings_held_by_the_U.S._Government
</a><br>><br>> A lengthy debate on English Wikipedia is at:<br>> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/US_government_portraits">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/US_government_portraits
</a><br>><br>> The debate in short: The paintings are not Work of the<br>> United States Government, they were made by artists on<br>> commission. Can they be used as public domain?<br>><br>> / Fred<br>
</blockquote></div><br>-- <br>Jim (<a href="mailto:trodel@gmail.com">trodel@gmail.com</a>)<br>"Our love may not always be reciprocated, or <br>even appreciated, but love is never wasted"<br>- Neal A Maxwell<br>
---Intersted in Gmail - let me know I have invites---