Re: Fine Art Reproductions

On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> Under U.S. law: According to the recent case of Bridgeman Art Library
> v. Corel Corp., a photograph of a public domain art work cannot be
> copyrighted (lack of originality), so this would not be an infringement.
> That doesn't mean that you might not be sued by a purported copyright
> holder who believes otherwise, but at least you can proceed in good
> faith.

While I agree with the overall conclusion reached by Tyler, I have a quibble over his characterization of the Bridgeman holding. The court in that case held that the photos at issue were such faithful, precise reproductions of the original work that they lacked originality. I don't think that it held generally that photos of public domain works will always lack originality. (One can imagine photographers that use light, perspective, etc., to add expression of their own.) I agree, however, that photos in art books tend, as in Bridgeman, to be faithful reproductions and are likely to lack originality under the district court's analysis.

Stacey Dogan
Visiting Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law, 400 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115 USA
(617) 373-4551 (ph); (617) 373-5056 (fax); s.dogan[_at_]nunet.neu.edu (email) Received on Tue Mar 30 1999 - 15:51:15 GMT