If something is apocryphal then it is, by definition, not certain (as opposed to false). The possibility that a story may not be true means that it is definitely apocryphal. It cannot be not probably apocryphal.

On the main substance of the story, I agree with the US court. If I re-produce a Beethoven score but add nothing to it at all, then I don't get copyright on the result. If I adjust the phrasing, correct a bar line and generally contribute creatively, I do get copyright on the result. Otherwise photocopying somebody else's creative work would create a new creative work.

I can't see the difference here. A photograph of a street scene, mining truck or a sport's moment all requires careful framing, selection and timing. Pure photographic reproduction may require skill but there is no creative element - it is photocopying in its purest sense. This might be bad for art restorers but I can't see why copying by photo ain't photocopying. It would make more sense to claim that restoration is a creative work (similar to interpreting a musical score for publication) and the new copyright rests with the restorer.

The Statute of Anne of 1710 broke the monopoly of the London Company of Stationers, creating a public domain and getting rid of the concept of "perpetual copyright", amongst other things.

Today: re-introduction of "perpetual copyright" through the back door, using a combination of insanely long copyright terms (up to 100 years now, and rising), criminalization of DRM removal (thus even if it's in the public domain, if it has DRM you can't get to it) and the ability to copyright the copies of a work that is already in the public domain (which effectively remove that work FROM the public domain).

Looks like the London Company of Stationers is back in business, and we can all kiss our public domain, and our copy RIGHTS, goodbye.

So, if it is just a matter of getting a revenu stream from art, every Museum, galeries and co keep theirs masterpieces in a bunker and license theirs reproductions.

I should read again Walter Benjamin and his fellows from Francfort, did they have spotted this aspect in their time?

Did Warhol manage his IP upon all the reproductions of his production ?

Copyright used to be about rewarding the creator of a work for a period of time before the work's ownership became public. Gradually the laws and practices are being altered so that copyright is about ownership in perpetuity. A lot of the arguments about DRM and copyright enforcement overlook this -- its not about rewarding starving musicians, its about the ability of large organizations to own our culture and charge tolls for its use.

The Egyptian government has recently got in on the act, its going to copyright its monuments and stuff. How is anyone's guess, but it obviously has looked at law and practice and feels it can do this and so monetize its property. (The French have long since had a situation where you can't photograph property without permission, they regard building facades as copyright, so this might be where they've got the idea from.)

Its all wrong. Horribly wrong. But there's money involved so there's nothing we can do about it.

More hi-res art turning up on the pirate bay, then?

Who's going to be taken to court for having a 400 year old image on their hard drive?? I can't wait to hear the judicial arguments...

Stop the planet, I want to get off.

Many good points already made above.

If Michelangelo spends years on his back, he DESERVES a reasonable copyright. If someone takes a simple photograph, then their rights should be in proportion to their effort (i.e. next to none).

Any of these ancient artworks really need to be firmly in the public domain. The artist has long since turned too dust. There should be no more rights for anyone. Perhaps Google could do the world a favour and create Google Hi-Res Scans of Public Domain Art.

I'm sure that many people are getting sick to death of the whining rights holders. Even listening to BBC Podcasts, one hears a notice that the music has been replaced by this notice due to unwillingness to pay the rights holders their fee multiplied by six billion. There's almost no music left on BBC World Service probably due to this issue.

Enough is enough already. Time to take back the overly broad monopoly 'privileges' that we have ~given~ to the 'rights holders'. Already in Canada, a copyright bill got stopped in its tracks by the public outcry. Hopefully Rev. A will provide a more balanced approach to the whole subject.

I keep getting the feeling that, in and amidst the furor of protectionism and punishment, the purpose of copyright and patent has been lost.

Intellectual property rights are not about the protection of profit making and information ownership.

Rather, intellectual property rights are an elaborate bit of bribery offered by society, through the mechanisms of law and government, as an incentive for creators and inventors to share their creations and inventions with the rest of us.

We, as a society, offer to the creators of these works, or their duly authorized designees, the promise of exclusive control over these works, for a period of time, enforced by the promise of legal remedy should that control be illegally infringed upon during that period of time.

In return for this protection, at the end of that period, all rights of usage pass to the public.

It's as simple as that.

If copyrights and patents do not expire in a timely fashion, if the works covered do not enter the public domain after some reasonable period, then it is not in society's interest to offer or enforce intellectual property rights.

> reason why you can't take photographs of old objects in museums.

It's a bit variable (in the UK, at least). The Natural History Museum has a 'photograph/video whatever you want, provided it's for personal use' policy, as does the British Museum - but the Royal Observatory at Greenwich forbids any recording at all of the *amazing* Harrison clocks held there. Same with Westminster Abbey - photography is permitted in the cloisters only (ie. outside), and expressly forbidden elsewhere. But at Ely Cathedral, you're charged a tiny fee for a photography pass - which remains valid for one year. (it's that sort of approach which makes me feel more inclined to donate to them, waiving my copyright, any worthwhile picture I might have taken there)

I'm Ok with the idea of a specific *reproduction* of a public work (emphatically NOT restoration) being copyrighted - but I thought we were already helping pay for our historic public buildings/artifacts through general taxation? Stopping me from photographing "my" property seems a bit steep.

(although I think you're right about Gates: given half a chance he'll apply the usual 'embrace & extinguish' techniques to anything within grasp)

I don't think that UK law is as clear-cut as you think. The statutes don't mention photographic reproductions. The assertion that a photographic reproduction is a 'new' work is, um, not self-evident.

Until English case law is established, we won't know whether the Bridgeman vs. Corel decision will be echoed over here. Even in the US, the situation is not 100% clear - the Bridgeman vs. Corel case was decided in a lower court - the precedent could be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Until the situation is clarified, Wikipedia is quite right to make the best use they can of what's available to them.

Probably apocryphal, Julian, but Future Memory is AI Creative Art in Perfect Harmony with Space....... and ITs Broad Band Spectrum Capabilities within Future Use Helm Parameters ...... Drivers CodeXXXX in a Simply CompleXXXX Binary VXXXXine CoIntrusion. Mating. I trust in GODs that they have All Adequately Prepared for the Love Child in One Parallel .

Alien Medicine Apache MaJIC to Scout Out in NeuReal Operating Systems ......42 Boldly Go, in A.N.Other Field/Dimension/Track.

At least one person is thinking the way I am.

The NEW copyright is only on the specific images, so there is nothing in copyright law that would prevent your or I from going and taking our own pictures of these old works of art. However, the current owners/custodians will not permit that - and you can argue that they should have the right to dictate what may or may not be done on their premises.

And it's hard to criticise a cash strapped museum for taking advantage of some cash it's offered !

Found on the web:

"...copyright laws. But seriously, did you agree to these laws? As far as I know its not violation unless you signed something stating you wouldn't do it. But thats just my opinion."

Although the facts are a bit weak, I admire his positive attitude.

I nominate this as Quote of the Year (2007).

Happy New Year.