Since this is a photo-related site, if anyone is generally wondering about copyright protection, it's straightforward these days. Since this has come up in this thread, I'll bore you a bit.
For folks in the U.S., as long as the visual work (i.e. photo) was created and "fixed" (no, I don't mean fixed with fixer) in physical form after 1989, copyright protection is automatic (i.e., for protection, no need to file anything with the government -- that's important though when you want to sue). Anyway, copyright arises once the photo physically exists. Under the 1976 Act, which is the one we work under today, one need not worry about a photo falling into the "public domain" until the copyright period ends (that's a long time). The only other time these days that the issue of "public domain" arises is when one is dealing with disputes where the 1909 Act still applies. That's not the case with Mr. Gandy's photo for instance.
So here are a few little quotes on this topic, from the U.S. Copyright Office of all places:
"Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is 'created' when it is fixed in a copy...for the first time. 'Copies' are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm."
"The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."
"The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works....Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989." (that's where the post-1989 reference comes from).
The most common defense to infringement is "fair use". 17 U.S.C. 107 states, for example: "....the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Aside from "fair use", there's also "innocent infringement": As in, gosh, I had no idea that was YOUR photo of an R2, despite it being on your very nicely put-together web-site that I visit all the time and steal photos from.
For Canadians who (unlike me) still reside in Canada, copyright protection in Canada is basically the same as the U.S., if not broader (at least from the author's' perspective). Canada recognizes "moral rights" as well as those rights enumerated by the Copyright Act. Copyright protection is automatic once the work is in physical form. The Canadian version of "fair use" is "fair dealing". There's also a specific defence for "acts undertaken without motive of gain."
This guy who violated Mr. Gandy's copyright was not making "fair use" of the photo.
For everyone else, I have no idea!
Julian
[E&OE]
