Suppose one takes a photograph of a book page. There's no artistic interpretation, the result is effectively a copy of the page. The book is not copyrighted. Can the photograph be copyrighted by the photographer, according to USA law?
The question becomes more interesting and relevant if the book is hundreds of years old, and not easily accessible, e.g. a codex. The same question could apply to a photograph or reproduction of a painting.
It appears that I found the answer. Such photographs are not copyrightable in the USA, but the situation may be different in other countries.
From the second link,
The Bridgeman Art Library had made photographic reproductions of famous works of art from museums around the world (works already in the public domain.) The Corel Corporation used those reproductions for an educational CD-ROM without paying Bridgeman. Bridgeman claimed copyright infringement.
The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are not protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking in originality.
In their opinion, the Court noted: "There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection ... But 'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify."
