You can see this kind of behavior with many museums and cultural institutions. For example with the Van Gogh museum in The Netherlands. They warn you explicitly that you may not use images of Van Gogh paintings for commercial purposes or in a size larger than A4. For example when you try to download De aardappeleters [1], you'll meet these two [2][3] documents with terms and conditions.
When I pressed them on this considering the supreme court decision Van Dale/Romme [4] (which is very similar to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. [5]), they responded with the following:
"First of all the Supreme Court decision in Van Dale/Romme is not about photographs but about a collection of factual data. In this decision the Supreme Court determined when a work is protected by copyright. In our opinion the photographs that we offer on our website do comply with these criteria. The photographer had to make creative decisions in repect of lighting, illumination time, shutter speed, distance, angle etc."
"Secondly, the photographs are our property. We have invested in the making of these photograhps. Since the photographs are our property, we can decide when and how the photographs are used and by whom. We can set the terms and conditions. If you order photographs from our website, you are bound by our terms and conditions. If your use of the photographs violates these terms and conditions, you will be in breach of contract and we are entitled to take legal action."
"You or your client are free to make products with the paintings of the painter Van Gogh, but if you would choose to do so with our high res photographs and therefore want to profit from our efforts and investments you will have to comply with our terms and conditions. If you do not want to pay the requested compensation for the use of the photographs, we suggest you use some other pictures or photographs."
"Please note that our museum has to be self-sufficient. The exploitation costs of an art institute like the Van Gogh Museum are considerable and all our income is invested in the exploitation of the museum. The compensations we ask for the use of our photographs help us to keep the museum up and running."
They seem to admit that anyone would be free to make (high-resolution) copies of Van Gogh paintings, while at the same time claiming that they own the copyright on the high-resolution images files that they created and sell.
IANAL, but isn't it quite obvious that a photograph of a painting that faithfully reproduces it has no creative/artistic value of any kind and can therefore not be protected by copyright? They explicitly made ridiculous claims because they know this ("The photographer had to make creative decisions in repect of lighting, illumination time, shutter speed, distance, angle etc").
When I pressed them on this considering the supreme court decision Van Dale/Romme [4] (which is very similar to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. [5]), they responded with the following:
"First of all the Supreme Court decision in Van Dale/Romme is not about photographs but about a collection of factual data. In this decision the Supreme Court determined when a work is protected by copyright. In our opinion the photographs that we offer on our website do comply with these criteria. The photographer had to make creative decisions in repect of lighting, illumination time, shutter speed, distance, angle etc."
"Secondly, the photographs are our property. We have invested in the making of these photograhps. Since the photographs are our property, we can decide when and how the photographs are used and by whom. We can set the terms and conditions. If you order photographs from our website, you are bound by our terms and conditions. If your use of the photographs violates these terms and conditions, you will be in breach of contract and we are entitled to take legal action."
"You or your client are free to make products with the paintings of the painter Van Gogh, but if you would choose to do so with our high res photographs and therefore want to profit from our efforts and investments you will have to comply with our terms and conditions. If you do not want to pay the requested compensation for the use of the photographs, we suggest you use some other pictures or photographs."
"Please note that our museum has to be self-sufficient. The exploitation costs of an art institute like the Van Gogh Museum are considerable and all our income is invested in the exploitation of the museum. The compensations we ask for the use of our photographs help us to keep the museum up and running."
They seem to admit that anyone would be free to make (high-resolution) copies of Van Gogh paintings, while at the same time claiming that they own the copyright on the high-resolution images files that they created and sell.
[1] https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/s0005V1962
[2] https://cdn.vangoghmuseum.nl/1/4/1791/1/beyXX73TgUY8hhFrzwKg...
[3] https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/download/71396fdf-e8ce-4b37-90e...
[4] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_Van_Dale/Romme
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel....