This might be slightly off topic, but I think there are others here like me who sometimes work photographing paintings for artists (or in my case museums) and also for publication. I had always assumed that the photographs that were taken of such artwork was copyright protected as "original" work. I recently discovered this might not be so - I've just been having some discussion about his and apparently there is a US court decision that photographs of two dimensional artwork is not deemed an original work and thus not Copyright protected? Does anyone know anything more about this? Apparently the decision was in regard to art work that was now Public Domain, but as I understand it, the argument was photographs of art work that was still in copyright were thus protected by the copyright on the artwork (which doesn't help the photographer).