bell notificationshomepageloginNewPostedit profile

Topic : One thing that I did not see in the few answers I read, in fact I saw wrongly stated, is that a photograph counts as an original work of art. I am not a lawyer, but I work at a law - selfpublishingguru.com

10% popularity

One thing that I did not see in the few answers I read, in fact I saw wrongly stated, is that a photograph counts as an original work of art. I am not a lawyer, but I work at a law school and am surrounded by lawyers constantly debating arbitrary points all the time, and this came up once a while back. Once the painting is public domain, all reproductions are public domain to my knowledge.

This is the best article I could find to explain this point, though I'm not super happy with the source, but here's this: www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-paintings-copyright_b_1867076.html
This may be a debated legal topic, but from my understanding of copyright law, it wouldn't make any sense for the reproduction to count as a new work. That just wouldn't be in keeping with the way copyright laws have been enforced for years. This is a mostly American perspective though, I can admit that. I hope this helps.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.


Load Full (0)

Login to follow topic

More posts by @Miguel976

0 Comments

Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best

Back to top