Talk:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree Fastfission Scott 13:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the specific case

message: 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)
thread_title: What is the big deal, A decision has been made

message: 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)
thread_title: The article is missing info on the parties involved...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  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)
thread_title: Application

message: I noticed the outdated generic copyright statement for flags state they may be considered under this law.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)
thread_title: Be wary

message: 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)
replies: text: This is not a good place to ask about this. You might try the Wikipedia:Reference Desk. --Fastfission 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: william H. Foster painting

message: 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)
thread_title: GA Review

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Example of this Issue In Real Life

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Museums Copyright Group

message: 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)
thread_title: Appellate court affirms and extends Bridgeman decision

message: 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)
thread_title: Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citations needed.

message: 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)
replies: text: That's more like material for a law review article. There's an upcoming session at Wikimania on this issue . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The issue had a slot at Wikimania 2012 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." --John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case Precedent 

message: :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)
replies: text: This isn't the place to debate the decision. Bloodzeed (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  so if i take a picture of  the Mona Lisa 

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

message: A useful reference on the authority of US district courts.. 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)
thread_title:  Authority of US district courts. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image