Someone questioned, Bill Alman, the White House curator who said:
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.
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]."
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 Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. 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.
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."
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 are public domain works. The only issue is whether the photo itself is copyrighted.
This is also resolvable in one of 2 ways:
I think there is no easy answer. It would be best to contact the exact
office or institution which commissioned them and ask for a letter
clarifying the copyright status.
It is possible that the government purchased both the copyright and the
physical object, but also possible that the government merely purchased
the physical object.
Fredrik Josefsson wrote:
> This issue has been discussed for a while now. First
> on English Wikipedia, now on Commons.
>
> The discussion on Commons can be found at:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Official_paintings_held_by_the_U.S._Government
>
> A lengthy debate on English Wikipedia is at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/US_government_portraits
>
> The debate in short: The paintings are not Work of the
> United States Government, they were made by artists on
> commission. Can they be used as public domain?
>
> / Fred