View attachment 2146
This is a photograph of an old painting. The painting is old enough that it falls outside of copyright protection. The photograph, however, is rather recent. The goal of the photographer was to reproduce the painting as accurately as possible... not to create an original work of art. In this instance, the photograph also falls outside of the realm of copyright protection. Anyone may freely use this image.
View attachment 2147
In this instance, the work of art is rather recent. The artist and/or the owner likely still own the copyright to this image. A book publisher wishing to use an image of this painting would need to gain permission from the copyright owner. The photograph itself, again, is not a creative work and not afforded copyright protection. I can use the image here under "free use" laws that allow for the use of copyright images for certain purposes including critical commentary (a review in a magazine or online or a satire or parody ala MAD Magazine), educational purposes, and a few other uses.
View attachment 2148
In this instance, we are seeing a work of art within a gallery. The goal is not to reproduce the original painting as accurately as possible. The painting is part of a public space. Unless there were a sign or an agreement signed by visitors stipulating "No photographs" the photographer may freely photograph and display this image. Among the crowd there may be a wife, girlfriend, or family member. The image is an interpreted original work of art belonging to the photographer.
Again... wealthy copyright owners may sue regardless of how strong a case they have. Damien Hirst famously sued a teenager who was creating parodies of his work which he was selling for the equivalent of a couple of hundred dollars. Hirst sued and the teen, rather than try to fight Hirst's lawyers shelled over the couple of hundred. Of course, the publicity was worth far more than a couple of hundred to the teen and conversely, the negative publicity cost Hirst far more than the couple of hundred. Ironically, Hirst has been repeatedly accused of plagiarism and copyright infringement... and sued on these grounds repeatedly.
