[Foundation-l] Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or no?

[Robert Rohde]

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