|
There are differences between copyright of images and copyright of text. I can't remember that much about this issue, but I understand that here we are talking abour 2D (two-dimensional) copies of paintings, and in that case I'd think that the art gallery has a resonable case. As far as I remember, the owner of an image has the copyright to 2D reproductions (at least under USA and European laws/agreements).
As for Google scans; to claim copyright of the scan, it would have to be considered an image, and not a text. My understanding is that in this case, it would actually be the original publisher who held the copyright to 2D reproductions - but only if the scan of the page was considered an image and not a text.
Disclaimer: I haven't really read much about the case, so I might be miles off with this.
|