clipka wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
>> Some galleries want that copyright
>> restriction for as long as the original is in a private gallery, even
>> well past the death of the creator and the expiration of the most
>> lengthy copyright laws.
> 
> Hmm... just found this on http://www.copyright.gov/:
> 
> "Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any
> other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor
> the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership
> of any material object that embodies a protected work
> does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright"
> 
> So no, the galleries have /no/ copyright on the work, i.e. they can
> /not/ prohibit anyone from copying it by virtue of using a camera.
> 
> (They /can/ possibly prohibit use of cameras on their premises, but
> that's another issue...)
> 
> All this valid for the US only of course. And IANAL.

I didn't mean to imply that they did have copyright on the artwork, just
that some have tried to claim that they did. There was a museum or
gallery that sued a publisher for including prints of rather famous
paintings, where the originals of those paintings was in the museum or
gallery. The argument was that the paintings were in their possession,
and that taking pictures without their consent on a 'no cameras allowed'
property either gave them copyright over the pictures or made it illegal
to print them, both of which are rather silly claims.

It went to court anyhow, but I can not find anything on google about it.
 Could be that 'museum painting copyright prints' is just too vague a
search set. I will try later when I am awake.

Post a reply to this message