Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. as edited by HenryW (Talk | contribs) at 12:46, 12 January 2010. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), denied copyright protection to a photograph of a painting:[1]

Elements of originality [deserving of copyright] ... may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved." But "slavish copying," although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify. As the Supreme Court indicated in Feist, "sweat of the brow" alone is not the "creative spark" which is the sine qua non of originality. It therefore is not entirely surprising that an attorney for the Museum of Modern Art, an entity with interests comparable to plaintiff's and its clients, not long ago presented a paper acknowledging that a photograph of a two-dimensional public domain work of art "might not have enough originality to be eligible for its own copyright."

Reference

  1. Id. at 196-97 (emphasis added, footnotes omitted).