http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/National_Portrai...

The following was never revoced 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"

Erik Moeller at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-February/038394.html foundation-l

May I also remember Jimbo Wales' Manifesto:

"5. Free the Art!

Show two 400 year old paintings. Routinely get complaints from museums saying there is copyright infringements. National Portrait Gallery of England threatens to sue, a chilling effect, but they have no grounds." http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2005/08/jimbos_problems_1.html

For years there was no doubt that Bridgeman v. Corel was accepted on Commons. It is said that British courts would'nt accept Bridgeman v. Corel but there is no proof for this. It is true, in the contrary, that the NY US judge has diligently discussed UK law with the result that also according UK copyright law mere reproductions are NOT protected.

Bridgeman vs. Corel is an essential point for Commons and for all Wikimedia projects. This is not an issue some Commons pseudo-experts could decide. Before 500+ pictures of PUBLIC DOMAIN PAINTINGS are to be deleted the board of the Foundation should decide if Moeller's quote above is still its position.

Klaus Graf