Hoi, A low resolution version is in essence a derivative of the original. It is the prerogative of a copyright holder to license as he sees fit. The notion that a copyrighted work includes right to other manifestations of the same work is flawed. It is like saying that because you have bought a picture in a magazine that you have bought the poster as well. A different matter is when something became part of the public domain. It is completely legal to sell a high resolution version. As it is part of the public domain, it is legal under most sensible laws to use this high resolution as you see fit. The question is a different one, how do we make sure that museums and archives appreciate that they cannot restrict the use of public domain works. This is very much their problem. What we can do and should do is ensure that we are appreciative of the cooperation of archives and museums. It is for this reason that we should always publish where originals can be found. When museums and archives sell high resolution copies, we can and should point to their high resolution page. What we should not do is enter into contracts that restrict what we do with material that is in the public domain. Thanks, GerardM 2009/3/30 Klaus Graf <klausgraf(a)googlemail.com>

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf(a)googlemail.com> wrote: As long as this remains a rather fringe opinion, I chose to ignore it and stick to the established procedures and understanding. A license applies to a specific file, not to the incorporal, ideal abstract work. Mathias