Not (necessarily) true, though a little unsettled.

Ever since Bridgeman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_...) most museums have accepted that no matter how much effort goes into the imaging, some imaging simply does not qualify as novel enough to warrant new copyright. This ruling is, as I understand it, not actually binding in other districts, but it's generally accepted.

Because imaging of flat art, without a frame, is inherently intended to add as little interpretation as possible, it's generally accepted that reproduction imaging of 2D art is not copyrightable. This is the Getty's own position (I worked there until a few months ago, from the same department that brought this project out).

Any other questions I can answer about this project I will.