I apologize if my question came off as presumptuous and/or snarky. My question was genuine. I assumed from the up-votes that my question's underlying basis was indeed correct.
Clearly, taking a photograph of an art work does not automatically create a copyright free version of the art. Nor does scanning a book.
Just to clarify: A photograph wherein a copyrighted image appears but is not the focus of the image might likely classify as fair use, I assume?
Modders, please upvote parent and downmod my previous comment.
> Just to clarify: A photograph wherein a copyrighted image appears but is not the focus of the image might likely classify as fair use, I assume?
It might, but there you are getting into vagaries of fair use. Dialogue, music, trademarked goods - all these things can creep into a video or a photograph and taint it with derivativeness. (Is there a trademarked Coca-Cola prominent in your photograph? You may be in trouble. Is there a TV in the corner playing _The Simpsons_? Lessig gives an example where copyright-clearing a few seconds of that TV crippled a documentary.)
For example, a sculpture is copyrighted and photographs thereof derivatives & copyrighted, except in Germany which has specially granted the photographer protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
Your point is well-taken, but I think that Symbolics is now defunct? Granted, the copyrights don't vanish, but who knows where they transferred to, if anywhere.
Clearly, taking a photograph of an art work does not automatically create a copyright free version of the art. Nor does scanning a book.
Just to clarify: A photograph wherein a copyrighted image appears but is not the focus of the image might likely classify as fair use, I assume?
Modders, please upvote parent and downmod my previous comment.