So what images get copyright protection? As you can imagine, there are a lot of things that are included under the general term visual arts, and the US Copyright Office uses the phrase pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. These works include two and three dimensional works of fine art, applied art, and graphic art. Some examples of these works that are protected include photographs, jewelry design, sculptures, advertisements, games, collages, maps, weaving designs, patterns for selling or knitting, and even bumper stickers. What's not included within this definition of visual works that are protected by copyright? Well, mostly useful articles. Those are things that have an intrinsic utilitarian value. For example, clothing, or furniture, or light fixtures. However, designs that are on the useful objects can be protected by copyright. For example, a T-shirt may be silkscreened with a designer picture that is protected by copyright. A chair, which is another useful object in itself protected by copyright, but there may be a copyright in the design that's carved into the wood or in the fabric design that covers the chair. >> So you mentioned photographs earlier as an example of what's included in visual arts. And I think that's a topic worth diving into a little bit more. So, what if the subject of a photograph is actually something that's in the public domain? So as a refresher, things in the public domain are not protected by copyright. So if we take as an example the Mona Lisa, a painting that's in the public domain. If I take a photograph of the Mona Lisa, presuming the Louvre lets me take in a camera, do I have a copyright in that photograph? If the photo is only a replication of the Mona Lisa, what courts sometimes call a slavish copy, then there is no new copyright to protect. However, if I took a picture of The Mona Lisa and had you stand next to the Mona Lisa and put you in the composition, there might well be originality that could be protected with a new copyright. >> So how come there are some museums that will put restrictions on the use of images of public domain artworks, that they have in their collections and they make available sometimes on their web sites? >> Through contract law, it's similar to the way that some websites impose contractual restrictions on access. Museums can do the same thing, and have perms that govern the access even to public domain images. However, if you manage to legally acquire a copy of a public domain image, you may then create derivative works, for example, as much as you want. The mustache on the Mona Lisa is an example of that because the Mona Lisa is not protected by copyright. >> So to sum up all of this, visual arts are protected by copyright unless they're useful articles. And even then, a useful article like a T-shirt may have copyright protection in the pattern of the material or a graphic on the front or the back of the shirt. If you make an exact replica of something in the public domain, that slavish copy, then the copy itself does not get copyright protection. However, if you get a copy from someone else, they may put contractual restrictions on how that image may or may not be used in the example of a museum putting contractual restrictions on images of public domain art works. >> Thanks for listening.