File talk:Hyghalmen Roll Late 1400s.jpg

As far as I know, if someone scanned (or photographed) this 500 year old art, then copyright belongs now to that photographer. Thus, this picture may not be free. Dependes who pictured it. Yonidebest 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We go by the rule that copyright for a two-dimensional work can't be renewed simply by taking a photo of the original again and again. See the link in the license template to the US court case, w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. --Para 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume that this US court case effects only the US. Does this mean that only US residents are allowed to put this image in other Wiki's? Because from where I come from it is not allowed to use such image without checking if it was released or not. On the other hand, I am no legal attorney, but I do think this is somewhat problematic.

Perhaps each Commons image page should state which countries can use the image as freely as you'd think. Yonidebest 08:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading the case, "[The Court] applied United Kingdom law in determining whether plaintiff's transparencies were copyrightable." and "While the Court's conclusion as to the law governing copyrightability renders the point moot, the Court is persuaded that plaintiff's copyright claim would fail even if the governing law were that of the United Kingdom." IANAL, so I wouldn't know where this is legally applicable. It is a very controversial topic, and museums are busy lobbying for their copyfraud rights. Online I can only find vague mailing list messages that the law might be similar in Belgium[1] and France[2]. You better take this to Commons_talk:Licensing. --Para 11:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)