This is very nice. On the other hand Van Gogh died in 1890 so his work should really be in the public domain. Here the Van Gogh Museum is claiming copyright on the reproductions as a separate work of art and using that to restrict what you can and cannot do with these images.
back
3 comments
In the US, they can't. See Bridgeman vs. Corel. Despite whining from the museum community, nobody has successfully enforced a copyright on a public domain work in the US since then. This follows the Supreme Court decision in Feist vs. Rural Telephone, which wiped out copyright in telephone books as not being creative works. Bridgeman was followed by Meshwerks vs Toyota, which ruled that 3D scans of an object are not new works.
But the Statue of Liberty in Las Vegas apparently is a creative replica.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/arts/statue-of-liberty-st...
Yet another example of the modern "maximalist" copyright protection mindset.
My opinion is that, if a work is public domain, then any such format-shifting should also be public domain. I don't really see anything transformative in the Museum's usage of Van Gogh's work that would entitle them to protection.
I posit that within the next century, we will see the total death of the public domain. There are already those pushing for truly perpetual copyright out there, I ran into one such guy on (of all places) a C64 retro forum.
They see this like an orchestral recording of an original work, except they are the only ones with the original work...