On 6/22/99, Linda Cullen <lcullen[_at_]sipress.si.edu> wrote:
>
> I just read with a great deal of interest an article about a recent
> U.S. District Court case (2nd Circuit Court of NY) wherein it was
> decided that owners of photos or transparencies of artwork in the
> public domain can no longer claim copyright to the photos and
> transparencies. The article entitled "Photos Lose Copyright Rights"
> by Joshua Kaufman, Esq. appeared in Art Business News, January 1999.
> Since the article is six months old, I wondered if anything has
> changed about this ruling since then? Will it go to the Supreme
> Court?
If this note supposed to refer to Bridgeman v. Corel then the article or author of the query confuses the fact. The photos were not originally in the public domain, the artworks in the photos were. The photographs were ruled not to contain the required degree of originality to warrant copyright status.
I have a question: In their suit Bridgeman states that the Copyright Office registered their copyright and they use that fact as proof that the works are copyrighted. Is it true that when a work is accepted for copyright registration it does not imply that the copyright is valid?
Robert Baron
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:35 GMT