Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
| Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York | ||||||
| February 18, 1999 | ||||||
| ||||||
| 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 | ||||||
| <center>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 covered by copyright because they lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions may require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, it is a process that lacks originality, which is a key element for copyrightability under U.S. law. The decision applies only to two-dimensional images such as paintings.
Many federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman, though it has yet to be specifically endorsed by the Supreme Court. However, the Court's ruling in Feist v. Rural, in which it explicitly rejected difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability, seems to have supported the central reasoning behind Bridgeman.
See also
External links
- The court's ruling (http://www.constitution.org/1ll/court/fed/bridgman.html)
- About the case (http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html)
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Biocrawler by expanding it (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?title=Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.&action=edit). |
