> >> I don't know, but I know that I asked a public museum recently about > >> using one of their much older paintings for a CD cover, and they asked > >> for a very substancial fee, so I don't think it is that easy. > > > > I think the difference is that his father is making a painted copy. He could > > have used any of hundreds of secondary sources for this. > > Each of which may well be copyrighted.
All of which are essentially identical and none of which could claim to be the model from which he made a painted copy. My point is not that he could illegally evade a suit because of that but, rather, that the favt of hundreds of identical candidates shows that none had essential added content. And remember, this image is 103 years old. RY _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
