Copyright and Intellectual Property Information for Webmasters at utmem - Bookmark?
"It is estimated that by 2007, as much as 90% of the value of the world's top 2000 enterprises will consist of intellectual property" (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2003).
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation
These are the pages that I have found that refer to the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation ruling in the United States that applies to US law and UK law.
The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp ruling established that photographic reproductions of two-dimensional works, which themselves are in the public domain, do not have the requisite amount of originality to be protected by copyright.
R.A.R.I.N. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation
R.A.R.I.N. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation - R.A.R.I.N. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation - Excerpts from April 1999 American Association of Museums Annual Meeting Presentation, "What's Happening in Washington" Quote from this page: "This is one of the most relevant copyright decisions for museums in years. A Federal district court in New York in November held that photographic reproductions of two-dimensional works, which themselves are in the public domain, do not have the requisite amount of originality to be protected by copyright.
While this ruling was under British copyright law, the court noted it would have come to the same conclusion under U.S. law. At Bridgeman's request, this same district court revisited its decision and issued a revised opinion in February reaching the same conclusion, but doing so under U.S. law. Thus, this new ruling is more damaging to the status quo than the original."
BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) - BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) Quote from this page: "On November 13, 1998, this Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's copyright infringement claim on the alternative grounds that the allegedly infringed works -- color transparencies of paintings which themselves are in the public domain -- were not original and therefore not permissible subjects of valid copyright and, in any case, were not infringed. [n1] It applied United Kingdom law in determining whether plaintiff's transparencies were copyrightable. [n2] The Court noted, however, that it would have reached the same result under United States law."
Bridgeman Art Library v Corel Corp
Bridgeman Art Library v Corel Corp - Funny Strange has a useful page here which discusses the Bridgeman Vs Corel Corp legal decision that supports webmasters in their right to use public domain images of art works held in museums. Quote from this page: "However, a recent court case may have shed new light on the situation. Bridgeman Art Library is a British company which licenses transparencies of museum art. In 1998, Bridgeman sued Corel, claiming that Corel's CD of fine art reproductions infringed on Bridgeman's copyright.
The court determined that museum reproductions, whose purpose is to duplicate the original work as precisely as possible, do not involve enough originality to be copyrighted as a derivative work. In other words, a museum reproduction of fine art in the public domain is itself public domain, and unauthorized duplication of the reproduction is not copyright infringement."
"For what avail the plough or sail, or land or life, if freedom fail?" - Ralph Waldo Emerson