Talk:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

Other genres?

Robert J Nagle 18:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I would like to know if Bridgeman could be applied to other genres like motion pictures. Anyone know? does this apply also to quasi-2D works of art, such as reliefs, mosaics or coins (see also Image_talk:RomanChariot.jpg? dab 15:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or what about ancient inscriptions and Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling painting?

As far as I know, this doesn't only apply to photographs. In that it applies to anything besides the exact pictures involved in the suit, it applies to exact replicas. I seem to recall a suit over a toy manufacturer that sued another one over a copy of an exact scale replica who lost, and the judge cited this case as a reason.

Robert J Nagle: I'm interested in finding out more about this reproduction of 3-D objects issue as relates to copyright. Can you provide more deatils so that I can search for it with some confidence? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

the specific case

Could someone add some information about the case itself, not only about the general implications of the court's ruling?

• Yes, exactly. For an article so widely cited by Wikipedia it is sad it is only a stub! --Fastfission 21:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree Fastfission Scott 13:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• • IANAL, but I think the key problem here is how to add information about the case itself without either violating Westlaw's copyrights, or making a trip to the archives of the presiding court to get at the original documents directly. --Kgf0 20:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Westlaw doesn't have copyrights on the text of the cases themselves, which are in the public domain by default (the article we have on them mentions a few of said cases; and the mere compiling of case data would fall under Feist v. Rural). Anyway, there is certainly no problem in using Westlaw to read the case documents and then synthesize them into an article. The text of the decision is actually linked-to from this article. --Fastfission 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I was not aware of the HyperLaw case detailed on the Westlaw page - thanks for pointing it out. Thanks too for putting another item on my to-do list ;-P --Kgf0 22:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Always my pleasure. ;-) The case itself looks mind-numbingly boring, as I skimmed over the decision, which is probably why nobody has written it up yet. The summary is more interesting than the case itself, which seems to plod over very uninteresting details and differences between UK and US copyright law. --Fastfission 00:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the big deal, A decision has been made

And I thought so... Whats the problem? It's easly understood. Does anyone profit here on Wikipedia? I don't think so. It's an exchange of information. Good article and listen up.

Scott 01:43:57, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

The big deal is that the case is relevant to the work of Wikipedia. Is that not obvious? --bodnotbod 18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is missing info on the parties involved...

The article doesn't tell me who was claiming they should have copyright and which party were arguing for the right to copy. Perhaps, if you're familiar with the law, you can figure it out from which name comes first. But I'm not familiar, so I can't. --bodnotbod 18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Looking at the transcript, it seems that Bridgeman Art Library was sueing Corel Corp. for making photographs of slides Bridgeman Art Library had made. --Fastfission 21:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• I tried to make sense of the rather dull transcript about the facts of the case. Hopefully somebody can go over them to make sure I didn't mess anything up too much in either the context or the ruling. --Fastfission 21:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• It's not that complicated. Bridgeman sold sets of slides of public domain artwork. Corel scanned in the slides, put the results on CD, and shipped the disk as clip art with one of their products. --John Nagle 19:18, 26 February 2006 (PST)

2-D & 3-D art

copied from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 23, 2005

You know, I'm not so sure that File:Joseph Smith first vision stained glass.jpg is really PD. A stained glass window isn't quite 2-D art in the same way that a painting is; there is considerable art in photographing it. An alternative image we could use is File:Joseph Smith receiving golden plates.jpg. Is there any U.S. legal precedent known on whether or not stained glass windows are considered 2-D art for the purposes of en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.?--Pharos 22:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there is solid footing that this image is public domain. In Bridgeman, the court said, "The Court of Appeals affirmed a district court order compelling the defendants to cancel a recordation of copyright in the plastic reproduction on the ground that the reproduction was not "original" within the meaning of the 1909 Copyright Act, holding that the requirement of originality applies to reproductions of works of art. Only "a distinguishable variation" -- something beyond technical skill -- will render the reproduction original."[1]. See also the courts reasoning that the change of medium is immaterial. [2]. Finally, the source is clearly identified on commons, and no copyright is asserted by the owner to dispute its public domain status which is notable since pbs claims copyright on many of its other pages.

Although, the wikipedia article says that the decision applies only to photos of paintings, I could find no dictum limiting the ruling to paintings. Other than the fact that paintings were at issue int he case, there is no support for such a limited reading. In fact just the opposite is true - relying on this is reasonable (and in fact preferable). FYI Corel had a Religious stained glass Photo CD (see also here) available at the time the decision was made. Trödel•talk 23:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the 2-D comment per the discussion above and because the case is not limited to 2-D art. User:Fastfission restored and rewrote the sentence:

The case would likely not apply to photographs of three-dimensional objects, as the photographic arrangement would plausibly require some creativity.

I disagree - this is not supported by the courts ruling. Although, an attorney representing a photographer of three-dimensional objects could make that argument in good faith. For us to draw this conclusion before the question has been presented before a court is pure speculation. Additionally, the court in Bridgeman, relied upon Batlin where the object was 3-D and the new art was also 3-D, so the court makes no 2D/3D distinction that this sentence implies. If I were to sum the holding I would say, "The court ruled that originality must consist more than merely technical skill in determining whether a reproduction of a copyrightable work is itself copyrightable independent of the original work." or something more elegant with the same idea :) Trödel•talk 15:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• The actual ruling discusses this a number of times though of course does not resolve it in all instances. For example, Most photographs are "original" in one if not more of the three respects set out in the treatise and therefore are copyrightable. Plaintiff's problem here is that it seeks protection for the exception that proves the rule: photographs of existing two-dimensional articles (in this case works of art), each of which reproduces the article in the photographic medium as precisely as technology permits. Its transparencies stand in the same relation to the original works of art as a photocopy stands to a page of typescript, a doodle, or a Michelangelo drawing. It is fairly clear to me that the implication is that a photograph of a three dimensional object would likely not "stand in the same relation" to the original work of art.
• The use of Batlin only reinforces this: it was a 3-D reproduction of a 3-D object. There is nothing at all in the ruling to imply that a 2-D photograph of a 3-D object would be non-copyrightable, and there is in fact much to the contrary. If one did a 3-D sculpture based on a 2-D photograph, I imagine it would have copyrightable claims as well under this ruling. Anyway I do not think it is much of a stretch to make these interpretations as you are implying.
• Of course the question of something like stained glass is something very thorny which is not at all addressed in this ruling (whether stained glass is 2-D or 3-D is up for interpretation, in my opinion), and any speculation along those lines would be simply speculation. --Fastfission 16:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is not directly addressed, and stained glass is very tricky. I think to assert so definatively that there is a bright line between 2-D and 3-D nature of the work does a disservice to the main holding, which is that it is the originality that counts. Additionally, your example that a 3-D sculpture based on a 2-D photograph is not a good one, because, in most cases, the sculpture would have to introduce significant originality into the work as well as interpretation. It is the very opposite problem of the 2D photo of a 3D public domain work - normal photographs of a 3D work require little originality from the photographer, although I can see situations where the photographer could introduce originality and assert copyright. However, I think it is safe to conclude that in general normal photos taken of 3D works absent an assertion of originality would not be copyrightable. For example, if I took pictures of public domain scupltures at a museum, they would, IMO, not be copyrightable by me, because I have no artistic talent. Additiionally, if a case were brought on a stained glass work it would probably hinge on the originality of the photograph not the 2D or 3D nature, i.e. the artistic originality in the way the light shined through, and other original ideas of the artist.
  • We should reword this sentence to make it not so definitive, because the issue is not that simple. Sorry this comemnt is so much like a run-on thought dump Trödel•talk 17:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Application

It must be stressed that this rulling only applies in the United States, for other countries this ruling would be void. So it depends onn where you use the picture. Any views on this? Enlil Ninlil 03:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Corbis has a trick for obtaining copyright in their reproductions of public domain images. They add a DRM watermark to the image, and then they register a copyright on the DRM information. They then claim that using the image with the DRM watermark violates their copyright, and that removing it violates the DMCA.

This has not, as far as I know, been litigated. --Nagle 02:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but it seems to me that Bridgeman is a weak foundation for a Wikipedia copyright practice, even in the USA. It's only binding within the US Second Circuit, and presumably could be ignored by courts in the other 47 states. RossPatterson 16:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has challenged Bridgeman vs. Corel in court, and a US museum consortium discouraged Bridgeman from appealing, for fear they'd get an even broader appellate decision on record. The consensus now is that the decision is valid.[3] It follows from Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, the Supreme Court decision that phone books and similar data listings are not copyrightable. "The threshold of originality is low, but it exists". There's some remaining whining from the museum community, but not much. --John Nagle (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Be wary

I noticed the outdated generic copyright statement for flags state they may be considered under this law. While I expect this is true, what a number of people are forgetting about is that a fair number flags are new and therefore the flag design it self could potentially be copyrighted. If it is, this issue is irrelevant. We can obtain a accurate representation of the flag anywhere but if the flag is copyrighted why does it matter? Nil Einne 13:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

william H. Foster painting

I am trying to obtain answers regarding a painting and if it has any value, would this be a sourse to have questions answered?

I live in a rural area outside of Portland, Oregon, so am looking for help in this area. 216.134.165.2 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good place to ask about this. You might try the Wikipedia:Reference Desk. --Fastfission 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This is a good start on a GA article, but there are some issues that need to be addressed before it meets GA criteria.

• Per 1(b) and 1(c) there should not be sections made up of only one or two lines. These should either be expanded or folded into other sections.
• Per 2(a) and 2(b) if you are using only in-line citations, there should be more citation than currently exists in the article. At the least, the references section should include the mention of one or two umbrella sources that could be assumed by the reader to support the information not directly addressed by an in-line citation.
• It might eb useful to have some sort of image beyond the seal, although that is not necessary to meet GA standards.

Please consider adressing these concerns and re-submitting for GA. - Mocko13 14:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Example of this Issue In Real Life

I am a poet and I illustrate my poems with images. Usually I do this with my own images taken on a digital camera; however some subject matter does not lend itself to being photographed. For an example, see the following link which is a poem about a succubus/incubus (demon from mediaeval mythology) and which I've illustrated using a sample from a work by a Renaissance painter, courtesy of the Art Renewal Center:

http://www.dimension.entadsl.com/betty/pome.html (this is a link to my own web page)

The Art Renewal Centre is an organisation that routinely makes its money by selling such reproductions, though the way they phrased it was to request a 'donation' for use of the digitised image. The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case would suggest that this case is the reason why the ARC called it a 'donation'. In fact I responded by saying there was no money in poetry web-sites and offering to post a link to their site instead - a proposition to which they did not object.

Now, if I publish a book of my poetry and include these pictures, they may agree to that too. However, if they want payment, then the Bridgeman case would suggest that they can't enforce such a wish in US law. If I publish my book in the UK, would they then be able to pursue me under UK law..? I'd hope to negotiate a similar deal with them before it ever got anywhere near such a theoretical scenario, but there is a wider principle at work here.

Precedents in US courts do also apply as precedents in UK courts, on the basis that 'Common Law' is common to all those nations whose civel legal system is based on the Anglo-Saxon common-law principle, and not on the Roman system found in Continental Europe. Clearly there has been a difference in interpretation of precedents in this area between the US and the UK, so it is a potential minefield.

My question would be - could a US-based art gallery or similar organisation pursue me under say, French law for a book published in France, for use of an image it published on a US web site, when US law gives it no protection against such re-use..?

Andy Morley

Wikipedia does not give legal opinions (see our legal disclaimer). For an issue like this, you should ask an attorney. ShadowHalo 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Poet Morley: Bridgeman photographed the public domain art works that Corel then copied, repackaged, and sold. Although their photos were not deemed of sufficient originality to copyright protect in the US, Corel still owns those photos, but not an exclusive right to the original images. There was no finding by the court that Bridgeman has to share those photos with anyone upon demand. When Corel wanted the high-quality images, they had to buy the slides, like anybody else. Since producing even slavish reproduction photos costs money and even the very housing and preservation of the original works is quite expensive, it seems reasonable enough that they should be able to charge for access of their photo reproductions. It's a fine line, I know. But, to my knowledge, this ruling didn't address that topic nor did it address an entity's right to charge fees based on the usage of those reproduction photos ($ for private one-time use,$$ for use on 100 t-shirts, $$$ for use in a printed book, $$$$ for use on a website, etc). Just because an art work is in the public domain doesn't mean that you can demand a copy of it on a t-shirt without paying for the t-shirt. If you try to print a lower resolution image in a book, it will look as cheesy as a high-school newsletter; You have to use the best quality images available to you. the quality of your finished product will probably make the investment worthwhile. Maybe you can come to an agreement that doesn't involve an exchange of money, like you did before. And always follow your copyright attorney's advice. Editors, please point out where I have a poor understanding of this subject. Thank you! Wordreader (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Museums Copyright Group

From their website, the Museums Copyright Group seems to be a private lobbing group formed to support the Museum Point Of View on copyright issues. As such they are very much not neutral on this issue, and their opinion, and the opinion of their hired expert, should be viewed through its obvious POV. Now I am no legal expert, and a UK court might at some future date side with the group, but right now the article reads as if this is already the case. As a result I think some wording should be added to clarify the section. Although it may be difficult to do so with also seeming POV. —MJBurrage • TALK • 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- I also think that presenting an (uncited) reenactment of the case as evidence that UK law was badly applied is giving undue weight to an opposing view. I will remove the section for now--others can put it back. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Appellate court affirms and extends Bridgeman decision

There's a new decision of interest here, Meshwerks vs. Toyota. Meshworks created 3D meshes of Toyota cars. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 17, 2008, that plain meshes which simply reflect the geometry of an underlying object are not original works and as such are not copyrightable. The decision references Bridgeman four times, and on page 18, comments favorably on Bridgeman. This decision extends the Bridgeman reasoning into 3D.

The court quotes the language "[T]he law is becoming increasingly clear: one possesses no copyright interest in reproductions . . . when these reproductions do nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image.", and writes "After all, the putative creator who merely shifts the medium in which another’s creation is expressed has not necessarily added anything beyond the expression contained in the original." "In Bridgeman Art Library, the court examined whether color transparencies of public domain works of art were sufficiently original for copyright protection, ultimately holding that, as “exact photographic copies of public domain works of art,” they were not." --John Nagle (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp

There's a reference to "Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp" in the article. That needs better explanation. Eastern is really a design patent and trade dress case, about a look-alike telephone. The only copyright issue revolved around one company copying images from another company's catalog. It was not asserted that the original images were in the public domain. That ruling contains the line "There is a very broad scope for copyright in photographs, encompassing almost any photograph that reflects more than "slavish copying." That's not really relevant to Bridgeman vs. Corel, which is about "slavish copying". --John Nagle (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed.

The section on the effect on US Law says, "The case has enabled broad public use and reuse of older artwork in a large variety of contexts. It has also persuaded several important libraries to drop restrictions on the redistribution of images of out-of-copyright manuscripts."

If citations can be supplied for these two sentences, then the ranking of this article could definitely be raised well beyond class=C, especially since the size of the article has almost doubled. Anyone up to the challenge? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the basis for the presence of tens of thousands of images (maybe hundreds of thousands) on Wikimedia Commons -- look at Commons:Template:PD-Art and the links from there... AnonMoos (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that, and it is a believable and common sense fact that makes the statement plausible, but there should be at least one source independent of Wikipedia, perhaps in a newspaper. Also, at least one example of an important library that has dropped restrictions on manuscript copies would be welcome, too. Perhaps I am the editor to take up the challenge, but not right now. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content from section "Effect on U.K. law"

I went through the article history of the removal of this sourced content from the section Effect on U.K. law,

In July 2009, the non-applicability of this ruling outside the United States was used in a legal demand sent by lawyers representing the National Portrait Gallery of London to a user of Wikimedia Commons for possible copyright infringement for uploading numerous reproductions of public domain paintings from its collections to the site, contending that skill and labour was required in their restoration. In this case however, both the user and the server that the images were uploaded to, are located within the United States.

and found these assertions of their opinion by editors in the history, by virtue of their logged actions with respect to the removal:

Disagree to the removal (in chronological order):

• User:Catgut
• User:AnonMoos
• User:Aladdin Sane
• User:Arthur Rubin
• User:RepublicanJacobite

Sometimes it is difficult to determine what consensus is on Wikipedia. This does not appear to be one of those times. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal at present, though not the edit warring. The section cites only to a BBC article that does not mention Bridgeman at all. Unless you can present a secondary source commenting on the Gallery's mention of Bridgeman in their demand letter, there is no reason to treat it as an incident worthy of note in this article. postdlf (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the counter-argument to my statement, or the addition of sources to the article that actually support the section's inclusion. Otherwise, the section should be removed. postdlf (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought your re-edit had improved the article greatly. The information about the threat made needs to stay in the encyclopedia of 6,914,897 articles. I personally find it educational both for myself, and for the other 48,306,949 registered editors here. These are instructions for how not to put your foot in it.

However, I can buy the argument, "This isn't the right article for a legal threat that may or may not have mentioned Bridgeman, we need to move the information to another article". What that article is, I haven't a clue. I could imagine an article (or 1200 or 12,000) on the subject of "legal threats", "chilling effect", SLAPP, censorship by intimidation, and, and, oh heck, it keeps going on and on.

The point being, the only ones with a vested interest in removing the information using a dismissive or contemptuous argument are [redacted] lawyers who get to charge $500/hr to corps for sending out mass C&D letters to well-meaning editors all over the Internet, or who are entirely naive and just fell off the turnip truck (and I note that those who did just fall off the turnip truck aren't reading articles like this one). When we make a mistake, they (the lawyers) make money. The educational value of keeping these documented tactics documented far outweigh the "it's boring in this article" arguments.

No, I edit in the scope of fictional subjects, where editors are constantly adding "boring fancruft" that sometimes needs pruning. This article is not one of those; just the opposite. Its educational value to the reader is massive. Any detail related to it belongs here or in a related article (which should then be added to the "See also" section).

The fact that any documented threat was made to a Foundation editor such as myself or yourself at all goes past the admittedly limited precedential value in this legal decision, and rises right up to the level of what we're trying to do as editors. This article is used as a reference at WP:MCQ, and issues related to the Wikimedia Foundation projects need to stay here or be moved to close-by article, so we understand, and can easily reference, how not to make a copyright mistake and get slapped with a C&D or equally obnoxious communication (or even a lawsuit). (I note that all these things necessitate some form of "outing" which is contrary to our culture.) The value of having the online encyclopedia at all is mass education online, and this documented case of a threat being made goes straight to the heart of the matter of being online, and what it's like here.

Note, contextually my comments are from referenced experience, having been online for well over 20 years.

Please note, my references for my opinion are too numerous to count, but for the uninformed reader (who, I note, is who we write these articles for) interested in the history of the subject of "getting in trouble for being online", start at Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service (be sure to spend some time at the archive and look around) and then work your way forward for 20 years, because it's an ugly history that has only gotten worse, not better. (Ah, I don't even have to mention RIAA, MPAA, BSA...to make my point.) I would like to note that as a contrast to this phenomenon of being online, Kurt Denke, the perfect lawyer, wrote the perfect response to a C&D threat that has been reposted at Audioholics, proving there is hope in the distant future, for us. Someday, when copyright and other IP law catch up to what we're doing here... In the meantime, WP:MCQ could use a bit more help than it gets currently.

In conclusion, I can buy the idea of the information being moved, I cannot buy the idea of it being removed. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, your comment did not address my specific points. The statement that Bridgeman was raised in the demand letter is unsourced. Being unsourced, there's no support for the interpretation of the demand letter as significant to the topic of this article. So the section should be removed under any interpretation of relevant policy or guidelines (e.g., WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR). The general goal on Wikipedia to present information on all topics (not just information on misuse of legal threats or the legal system generally) obviously must be satisfied within the limitations of content quality controls. As for "moving" it, see National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. I wouldn't object to that being included as a "see also" link in this article. postdlf (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I did see it, now. Thank you for the reference to the proper article for the info. I wish there were a shortcut called WP:IBUYIT. I added the reference to the 'See also' section here. Now I'm comfortable with the removal of the info. How do we get the others to stop edit-warring so the info can be removed? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cross our fingers? But I think people are much less likely to revert registered users than an IP. My removal of the section referred to this talk page, so hopefully anyone who still has a problem with it will come here to discuss. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(...and thanks for your understanding and comments, btw.) postdlf (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the legal threat is notable, especially as the EFF has gotten involved. But it's really only tangentially related to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. The legal threat mentioned Bridgeman, but only to say that Bridgeman didn't apply. Should the National Portrait Gallery case go to court it might be interesting from the perspective of choice of law in international copyright, but that's not really what Bridgeman is famous for. And right now, there's no court case. There's just a legal threat, which in my IANAL opinion will probably be abandoned now that the EFF is involved. We can't read into who's right and who's wrong from a legal threat. We can't even say what National Portait Gallery thinks the legal situation is from a legal threat. They might have made the threat even though they knew they had little chance of winning a court battle, hoping that the individual would back down without obtaining legal help, and/or they might choose not to persue the case even though they think they have a good chance of winning a court battle, in the hopes that a better case to set a precedent with will come along. 173.170.157.188 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As of the end of 2009, the "legal threat" seems to have been empty. There's no news of any lawsuit that I can find. It seems the National Portrait Gallery never followed up on their threat to sue. --John Nagle (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Case Precedent

I find the "Subsequent Jurisprudence" section somewhat lacking and a bit misleading, especially as it's detached from the cases which predated Bridgeman.

This reference: Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp, 54 USPQ2d 1776, 1791 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), where it was ruled that "[t]here is a very broad scope for copyright in photographs, encompassing almost any photograph that reflects more than 'slavish copying'.

Is relatively unimportant insofar as it's a case in the same district as Bridgeman and the quote is merely an echo of Bridgeman at 196, which itself is an echo of the sentiments expressed in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 59, 4 S. Ct. 279, 282, 28 L. Ed. 349 (1884), which is really pretty essential precedent for any discussion of mechanical generation of creative work. Burrow-Giles established that photographs fall under copyright protection. And the "slavish copying" quote is from Feist, so I question the authority of referencing a secondary internet source rather than the actual case law.

In addition, Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1951), is unmentioned despite addressing a nearly identical issue as Bridgeman and coming from a higher court. Catalda didn’t have access to the original public domain works and instead made copies of Bell’s painstakingly accurate mezzotints. Catalda claimed they weren’t sufficiently original to get copyright protection, and the court disagreed.

This bit: The Bridgeman case has caused great concern among various museums, which receive income from licensing photographic reproductions of objects and works in their collections. Some of them have argued, as above, that the case has limited precedential value, or that (even though it was a federal court case) it has no application outside of the state of New York.

Is misleading and somewhat contradicts the legally accurate intro to the section: "As the decision of a federal district court, Bridgeman is not binding precedent on other federal or state courts, but it has nevertheless been highly influential as persuasive authority, and is widely followed by other federal courts." Which correctly states that district court cases are not binding precedent. the "even though it was a federal court case" parenthetical betrays a lack of understanding for the tiered nature of the US federal court system. I considered going into relative court authority but it seemed to be a digression.

These cases don't really fall under "Subsequent Jurisprudence" insofar as they're precedent (but then again, so is Feist). How would I go about integrating these concepts into the page? — Preceding comment added by Arttechlaw (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's more like material for a law review article. There's an upcoming session at Wikimania on this issue [4]. That might produce more reliable sources. There's some minor debate in the legal community as to whether Meshwerks went too far, but no later cases. Wikipedia has been relying on Bridgeman vs. Corel for over a decade; there's been one legal threat, and no lawsuits. This seems to be a settled issue. --John Nagle (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Relying on a lower court case is rarely a safe thing to do, and the law isn't settled until the Supreme Court or Congress weighs in on it. Adding case precedents would put the issue in more perspective. Were there any developments on this front at the Wikimedia conference? My colleague commented that the only lawyer on all of the law panels was from Israel and didn't know much about US Copyright law. Arttechlaw (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue had a slot at Wikimania 2012[5] but I haven't found any papers or transcripts from that talk. Nobody seems to be writing much about this issue any more. It seems to be regarded as settled. The last big challenge was the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute in 2009. That ended with a whimper: "Facing a protracted legal battle and negative press, the National Portrait Gallery eventually backed away from their complaint against Coetzee and Wikimedia. The Gallery no longer has any high-res images on their website; fortunately, high-resolution images of the museum’s entire collection are available, however, on Wikimedia."[6] --John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

so if i take a picture of the Mona Lisa

a) with an expensive, pro quality camera that produces a high quality print of the masterpiece. I got not copyright protection for my photo.

b) with a lousy camera phone that produces a blurry, cheap image, i got copyright protection because it 's original?

Ebaychatter0 (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate the decision. Bloodzeed (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

UK Intellectual Property Office now follows Bridgeman

"Simply creating a copy of an image won't result in a new copyright in the new item." - UK Intellectual Property Office[7] John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Authority of US district courts.

A useful reference on the authority of US district courts.[8]. US District courts do not have binding authority over other district courts. But they have persuasive authority - previous decisions by another district court are regularly cited as precedent. John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140314050438/http://museumscopyright.org.uk/resources/articles/bridgeman/ to http://museumscopyright.org.uk/resources/articles/bridgeman/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Image

Can anyone explain the relevance of the image currently used in the infobox? Is it one of the images that was on the contentious CD-ROM at the heart of this case? Or is it just some random (supposedly) out-of-copyright 2-D artwork? Either way, shouldn't its relevance be explained in the caption? And if it is just a random artwork, can't we use an image of one of the artworks that actually was in dispute? GrindtXX (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree - it's a very interesting image, but I will replace it with the one that launched the case. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)