On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@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