I was just reading about the Bridgeman Art
Library v. Corel Corp. case last night.
Heres some info from that reading... The decision by a
United States District Court 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.
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.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'.
"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." However recent events have thrown further doubt about the validity of the original rulings under UK law. Not only has the Museum Copyright Group, as outlined below, received legal counsel in the UK contradicting the rulings, more recently in May 07 a reenactment of the case by two leading professors of Intellectual Property at Queen Mary College, University of
London resulted in a judgement in favour of Bridgeman, and against Corel. In British copyright law, which the US judge appeared to have misunderstood, the skill, labour and judgement of the creator is protectable by copyright law as much as "originality". Thus the skill, labour and judgement involved in the creation of a high-quality photographic image is likely to be protectable by copyright in the
United Kingdom.
Remember the law is different in the US then the UK. In the UK they have the "sweat of one's brow" doctrine where the creator of a copyrighted
work, even if it is completely unoriginal, is entitled to have
his effort and expense protected, and no one else may use such a
work without permission, but must instead recreate the
work by independent research or effort.
Before we get too worked up remember that while several federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman, though its persuasive legal authority, as a district court opinion, has not been confirmed. It has yet to be cited by any appellate-level circuit court, and has also not been reviewed by the Supreme Court.