[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The purposes of the photographs is to reproduce, as accurately as possible, the original work. While a highly skilful act, it is not an artistic one, and the resulting photograph (as I read the cases I have found) is not considered to be an original work, and thus cannot be copyrighted.
18 months on and there still seems to be no case taken to court, and the images are still available.

What about the Sistine Chapel?

But the worst problem with this painstaking restoration was the expense. It would cost the Vatican a fortune. They issued a call for public sponsorship, the Japanese TV network NHK stepped forward with a proposal. NHK would pay for the restoration, in return for exclusive film and publication rights. Harper's Magazine writer Eric Scigliano's 2005 report "Inglorious Restorations" asserts that NHK paid between $3 and $4 Million.

The Vatican could only license the copyrights of a public domain work due to an old quirk of copyright law. The original artwork may be in the public domain, but a photograph of that artwork may be copyrighted as a new unique work. The photograph taken today becomes a new copyrighted work with new intellectual property rights. Museums often charge for photographs of works in their collection, and publication royalties provide a modest income stream to fund conservation.