Sorry John, but you are incorrect. In the US, at least, it was determined in court that photographs of works of art could not be deemed "original" works of art and thus afforded copyright protection because the goal is to simply reproduce that work of art (painting, sculpture, etc... as accurately as possible and not produce a new work of art. If the work photographed is fairly recent (post 1920s/30s... I forget the exact date) the artwork itself... in a museum or gallery... may still be under copyright protection. Under that situation, photographing the work may be seen as copyright infringement. This is why we often see exhibitions of newer works in museums accompanied with signs reading "No Photography Allowed." An artwork photographed within a setting... such as a Matisse seen installed within a museum with several museum visitors or the photographer's wife or girlfriend posing before the painting is a new work of art and not an attempt to merely reproduce the Matisse... and this would be legal for the photographer to use. Of course, copyright law is cloudy and parties with "deep pockets" may always sue... but are rarely motivated to do so unless they think there will be a sizable payoff.