View source for Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

'''''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:<ref>
''Id.'' at 196-97 (emphasis added, footnotes omitted).</ref>

: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."'''

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Copyright]]