Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
February 18, 1999
Full case name:	The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corporation
Citations:	36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1731, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1110
Prior history:	Judgment for defendants, 25 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
Presiding judge
Lewis A. Kaplan
Holding
Photographic reproductions of visual works in the public domain were not copyrightable because the reproductions involved no originality. Upon reconsideration and reargument, judgment was again entered for defendants.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. I; Copyright Act of 1976

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality.

1 Facts
2 Arguments
3 Ruling
4 Consequences
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

[edit] Facts

The case itself was the result of Bridgeman Art Library questioning the right of Corel Corporation to reproduce high-quality photographic slides that the Library had made from original paintings which were in the public domain.

[edit] Arguments

The library emphasized the effort that went into the production of their slides, which may have hurt their case—the effort expended was to make sure the slides reproduced the originals as exactly as possible (something of value to art scholars and historians) and thus were purposely devoid of originality.

The library also emphasized that under English and Welsh law, such reproductions seemed to be protected by copyright; the Court rejected that this applied to cases under U.S. jurisdiction and raised doubts whether the UK attitude towards these reproductions was as legally decisive as was claimed: "While the Court's conclusion as to the law governing copyrightability renders the point moot, the Court is persuaded that plaintiff's copyright claim would fail even if the governing law were that of the United Kingdom."^[1]

[edit] Ruling

The court ruled in favor of the defendant Corel Corporation.

[edit] Consequences

The case has caused great concern among various museums, which rely on income received from licensing photographic reproductions of objects and works in their collections. Some speculate the case would likely not apply to photographs of three-dimensional objects, as the photographic arrangement would plausibly require some creativity. This line of reasoning has been followed in other cases, such as Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp (2000), where it was ruled that there is "very broad scope for copyright in photographs, encompassing almost any photograph that reflects more than 'slavish copying'."^[2]

The case has enabled broad public use and reuse of older artwork in a large variety of contexts. The free media repository Wikimedia Commons includes a large number of digital copies of older two-dimensional paintings, including high-resolution images, and identifies them as public domain works based on this ruling.

Several federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman, though it has yet to be endorsed specifically by the Supreme Court. Moreover, this case has not been cited by any appellate-level circuit court meaning that it has no mandatory legal authority and its persuasive legal authority, as a district court opinion, has not been confirmed. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in Feist v. Rural, explicitly rejecting difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability, seems to support the fundamental reasoning behind Bridgeman.

The ruling's citation of English and Welsh law prompted the Museums Copyright Group in the United Kingdom (UK) to issue a report on the case in 2004.^[3] This concluded that the ruling "is not binding in the UK and is of doubtful authority even in the United States. It has not influenced the way museums negotiate or license rights and there have been no serious attempts by commercial users to undermine the position of museums." The Group went on to obtain supporting opinion from Jonathan Rayner James QC,^[4] a leading copyright specialist who found that, "as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether...the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting". UK museums therefore continue to claim copyright over photographic reproductions of items in their collections.^[5]