http://fultonchain.net/postcards/
good fun. no copyrights, free to use, blah blah blah.
:thumbsup:
bookmarked 
thanks
low rez :thumbsdow
Free :thumbsup:
and I certainly would invite anyone to hijack the thread with more links.
Gustave Dorè Galleryhttp://www.scathach.de/index.htm bible illustrations etc.
_Originally posted by mark°us _ *Gustave Dorè Galleryhttp://www.scathach.de/index.htm bible illustrations etc. *
"All Artwork displayed on this web page is copyrighted property of Gustave Dore`."
Sorry.
_Originally posted by persist _ **"All Artwork displayed on this web page is copyrighted property of Gustave Dore`."
Sorry. **
damn! you're right - forget about it...
Doré died in 1883. How can he still have copyright protection?
He's got a point there, Persist. http://www.wm-arts.com/Information/Collage,%20Copyright,%20and%20Infringement.htm
Hey I was quoting for its oddity.
BUt if you really want to look into it, you'll have to look here. Not quite sure, although its where the trail ended.
http://www.bridgeman.co.uk/about/copyright.asp
It sounds like museum, collectors, or whatever, hire firms like this to reproduce art works. Bridgeman then copyrights the photographs, giving them exclusive right to reproduction. So although they may not have taken a photograph of every art work on the page, some works may have reproduction rights granted to Bridgeman, which is currently in charge of reproduction of the Dorè collection on behalf of current artwork owners.
I think many larger collections that involve lots of money involve this type of work around. Monet, Klimt, Renoir, etc fall under this type of business model. Renoir owners can take advantage of umbrella, t-shirt, and sweater sales in the museum gift shop under a consolidated legal process and unified business model.
shrug.
Yeah, it's the same all over - it's why museums always sell catalogues - as long as the work appears in a published catalogue, the image is copyrighted.
But laws vary. Apparently in Scandinavia thoise Edvard Munch blow-up dolls are siezed as contraband, and the Munch family still owns the rights to all his work. Then on the flip side you see the Mona Lisa being used to sell everything from cellphones to pizza.
But anyway since the Thunder Dome work we do is non-commercial and largley unpublished, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if image copyright ever became an issue.
Although of course you do have a point... but lest we forget, la Science et La Vie is still in publication, so you & I are already in a lot of trouble.
Vive l'anarchie!
Putting anything on a website is legally considered to be publishing.
I think you might have problems trying to claim international copyright on public domain artwork based on web publishing. But then again I may be wrong, I'd be interested to hear more about it. I know copyright onthe internet is slightly different than some other media when photo reproduction is concerned - otherwise hotlinking would be copyright violation, for instance.