On 7/16/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
And if the angry guy with the website really held a license for the picture he'd probably state its source and author somewhere and not just froth at the mouth when asked.
He probably feels he *owns* the picture since he scanned it in or some such.
On reflection, this may actually be true. The Mona Lisa itself is long out of copyright, but if you take a photograph of it, then you hold copyright over that specific photographic image. That's how art galleries protect their images of the pantings they own. You can't just go to the Louvre's website and use their image of the Mona Lisa. Some galleries ban photography for this reason (as well as the fact that flashes may damage the painting, especially watercolours).
How did this bloke get his copy of the image? If the subject expired in 1935, then very probably he found a printed source and scanned it in. In that case, he may well have a valid claim.