Re: Photo reproductions of art

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Laura N. Gasaway <unclng[_at_]email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> I recently came across the November 13 summary judgment
> decision in Bridgeman Art Libary v. Corel in which the SDNY
> held that photographic reproductions of public domain works of art
> lacked sufficient originality for copyright protection under British
> law. See 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17920 (SDNY, November 13, 1998).
>
> Quoting from 57 P.T.C.J. 69, "Although photography is
> inherently creative, a photograph which is merely 'a copy of the
> work of another as exact as science and technology permits' is
> no more entitled to copyright protection than a photocopy."
>
> This is the position that art history scholars and art
> librarians have been advocating for some time. Do you think
> this case will have any significant impact on photographic
> reproductions created in the United States?
  

Since it is an American court which is applying British law, it's decision is indeed binding in our jurisdiction.

However, it is important to note that the court's decision is being reconsidered. Even if the judgement stands, we have every intention to appeal it.

Robin M. Eichel
Manager
The Bridgeman Art Library (NY)
BALINY[_at_]aol.com Received on Tue Jan 12 1999 - 15:41:25 GMT