[regularfry]

If we are lazy for a second and combine the concepts of art and originality/copyrightability (which I'm guessing from your comments is broadly your position), why would gallery shots of fine art accrue their own copyright, and not this pixelated example?

[georgieporgie]

why would gallery shots of fine art accrue their own copyright

I don't know what this means. Examples?

[regularfry]

Here's an example (from http://www.tate.org.uk/about/media/copyright/):

" In terms of artistic works, if the artist is alive, or has been dead for less than 70 years, there will be a separate copyright in the work itself that is additional to the copyright in the photographic reproduction."

Here you have a gallery stating that there is copyright in the photograph of a work of art, distinct from that in the work of art itself. As I understand it, this is standard for reproduction photos.

[georgieporgie]

In that photo, the gallery art in question occupies less than 1/4 of the frame, and is partly obscured. The photo is composed primarily of green background, contrasted with a blonde girl in red.

I don't understand how that is a 'reproduction' photo at all.

[regularfry]

I don't understand how you can have read the page I linked to and have come away with the impression that I was in any way referring to that specific photo.

Here's a simpler example of the type of work which I, and the Tate, are primarily talking about: http://www.tate-images.com/results.asp?image=N01543

See the "Digital image (c) Tate, London" watermark on the image? Given that the original painting is 122 years old and therefore well out of copyright itself, the gallery are asserting that there is copyright in the photograph of the painting.

Here's another one: http://www.tate-images.com/results.asp?image=N06032

In this case, the painting itself is only 61 years old, so the original is still in copyright, as indicated by the "© The estate of L.S. Lowry/DACS 2011" entry on the right; note that there is still a "Digital image © Tate, London" watermark on the reproduction photo: one "orginal" work, two copyrights.

Having a quick google around, there's an interesting short article at http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm about a US case brought by a UK company which seems to clarify that the position is different in the US and in the UK: in the UK, there is still presumed to be copyright in photographs of artwork, while there is not in the US, so it's a little more complicated than I thought (who knew?).