File talk:JamesMadison.jpg

Copyright Rationale not same as Wikipedia

The copyright rationale for this image is not the same as that on Wikipedia, as it doesn't include the clause that says that, in the US, there is no copyright in the photograph. The source in both places is a little dodgy as it doesn't mention the photograph.

--David Woolley 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

A painting of a guy who lived 200 years ago, obviously painted while he was alive, cannot possibly be anything but Public domain… Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 11:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't the painting, it is a photograph of the painting, and the notice on the en.wikipedia.org version refers to US case law that prevents the photograph generating a new copyright. That may well not apply in other jurisdictions. Taking a photograph normally generates copyrights. The conclusion in both cases is that the image is in the public domain in the United States, which covers the Wikipedia Foundation itself, but may not cover other people trying to use it. The fact that there is case law implies that the law on this was not as obvious as you make out.--David Woolley 00:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)