Thank you for adding the attribution to the web page.

And I'm somewhat sorry to have ever brought up legal issues, since it seems to have obscured my central point: You have criticized a SL photographer who created images in what you yourself refer to as a public space because "This has upset the artists which work was on sale: they were never asked for permission for the sales of their works. Neither were they given proper attribution for the time and effort they put into the builds." Yet you ignored the museum and photographer who made possible your use of a classic piece of art.

Saying that wikipedia made the photo available is pretty flimsy: where *did* that photo come from? Pretty skimpy documentation on the wiki page. The artwork was given to the Prado in 1939. I find it unlikely that a high-quality color photo was created without their participation, although I suppose a museum visitor could have taken a photo and released it for public use.

And as for "originality": what about those Escher builds in the garden? Don't get me wrong, I think the artists did brilliant work. Just don't get all high and mighty about intellectual property rights unless you're consistent.