In that photo, the gallery art in question occupies less than 1/4 of the frame, ...

regularfry · on June 29, 2011

I don't understand how you can have read the page I linked to and have come away with the impression that I was in any way referring to that specific photo.

Here's a simpler example of the type of work which I, and the Tate, are primarily talking about: http://www.tate-images.com/results.asp?image=N01543

See the "Digital image (c) Tate, London" watermark on the image? Given that the original painting is 122 years old and therefore well out of copyright itself, the gallery are asserting that there is copyright in the photograph of the painting.

Here's another one: http://www.tate-images.com/results.asp?image=N06032

In this case, the painting itself is only 61 years old, so the original is still in copyright, as indicated by the "© The estate of L.S. Lowry/DACS 2011" entry on the right; note that there is still a "Digital image © Tate, London" watermark on the reproduction photo: one "orginal" work, two copyrights.

Having a quick google around, there's an interesting short article at http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm about a US case brought by a UK company which seems to clarify that the position is different in the US and in the UK: in the UK, there is still presumed to be copyright in photographs of artwork, while there is not in the US, so it's a little more complicated than I thought (who knew?).