[Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

[wiki-lists at phizz.demon.co.uk]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/27/2009 1:29:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> wiki-lists at phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> 
> 
>> I have a reproduction of  Rembrandt's "Toby and Anna" whilst that 
>> doesn't give the producer of the reproduction the right to stop me 
>> making copies from it, it also doesn't give me or you some bizarre right 
>> to demand digital files from the producer.>>
> 
> Are we demanding?  Or are we just taking without permission?
> 


 From the earlier poster Teofilo:

    I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
    resolution pictures of Public Domain works.

That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.

In any case your earlier assertion that there was a Supreme Court
decision covering this is wrong. Bridgeman vs Corel was decided at
District Court level. Be aware that courts are quite capable of deciding
to allow an action that they approve of (making a digital copy of an
analog copy), and disallowing a similar action that they disapprove of.
And no more so than in the realm of copyright Corel simply obtained
their copies by raiding Bridgeman's computer files, you could well find
that decision reversed. There is a quantitative difference between what
Corel did and MGET *.jpg