Jim wrote:
>    1. Determination that the photos lack sufficient originality, thus
>       the photographer can not claim copyright in the photo of a public
>       domain work (following Bridgeman)
>    2. Assuming that there is sufficient originality, so we need to find
>       the copyright status of the photo seperate from the one in the
>       portrait:
>          1. 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.
>          2. If the photo was taken by a contributor - then we should
>             refer to his license in uploading the work.
>
> 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

The problem is that Bridgman was only a district court case, not a
circuit court case, and it is unclear that the reasoning in Bridgman
will be followed by other courts.  It is not much of a precedent to rely
upon.

--Jimbo

Agreed, but we still have option 2) identify the source of the photo of the public domain work and find out whether they will clearly grant a license acceptable to WMF. Unfortunately, the only issue being discussed is whether the works are public domain or not. The US govt clearly owns both the physical objects and the copyright in the work - thus it is public domain.

So, if as Jimbo indicates we should assume that Bridgeman is not controlling, we should focus on the source of the photos and determine whether the photographer is claiming a seperate copyright in the photo.

Jim