194:
Bridgeman's photographs were not original works, and could not be validly copyrighted under UK law. It further determined that even if the photographs were copyrightable, no infringement could be deemed to have occurred under US law, because the only way in which
Bridgeman's and Corel's photographs were similar was that "both are exact reproductions of public domain works of art," so the only similarity between the two works was an uncopyrightable element: the public domain material itself. Therefore, under well-settled US law, there could be no infringement.
326:'s rule, under which the law of the state with the most direct relation to the property (i.e. the UK in this case) would apply. In particular, the wording of section 4(a) of the BCIA prohibits copyrights from being claimed "by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention or the adherence of the United States thereto". The application of UK law in the case would be in reliance upon the Berne Convention, therefore it could not apply and US law should be used to determine the copyrightability of the Bridgeman photographs.
340:, which stated that there "appear to be at least two situations in which a photograph should be denied copyright for lack of originality". Kaplan considered one of those situations, as described by Nimmer, to be directly relevant, namely that "where a photograph of a photograph or other printed matter is made that amounts to nothing more than slavish copying". A slavish photographic copy of a painting thus, according to Nimmer, lacks originality and thus copyrightability under the US Copyright Act.
206:
650:
or scanning, but it is doubtful that the law supports this". They argued that the fees inhibit the dissemination of knowledge, the very purpose of public museums and galleries, and so "pose a serious threat to art history". They therefore advised the UK's national museums "to follow the example of a growing number of international museums (such as the
Netherlands'
42:
272:
it made no serious effort to address the choice of law issue and no effort at all (apart from citing the
British copyright act) to bring pertinent UK authority to the Court's attention before plaintiff lost the case. Indeed, it did not even cite Graves' case, the supposedly controlling authority that the Court is said to have overlooked.
475:, "he tone and value of colors in the Schiffer photograph differed from those of the actual fabric swatch", meaning that not only was fidelity not achieved, but in fact the photographs were visibly inaccurate representations of the works photographed. The presiding judge in the case, Judge Berle M. Schiller, cited
568:
Stokes (2001) argued that, under UK law, the photography of such works, by dint of the lighting and other techniques involved in producing a photograph that renders the work to best photographic effect (possibly better than what would be visible to a person viewing the original painting on display in
649:
newspaper to urge that "fees charged by the UK's national museums to reproduce images of historic paintings, prints and drawings are unjustified, and should be abolished". They commented that "useums claim they create a new copyright when making a faithful reproduction of a 2D artwork by photography
557:
s a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in
English law, and that is irrespective of whether the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such
271:
At the outset, it is worth noting that the post-judgment flurry was occasioned chiefly by the fact that the plaintiff failed competently to address most of the issues raised by this interesting case prior to the entry of final judgment. In particular, while plaintiff urged the application of UK law,
347:
that had stated that "lements of originality may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved". But he ruled that the plaintiff, by its own admission, had performed "slavish copying", which did not
602:
However, according to established case law, the courts have said that copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author's own 'intellectual creation'. Given this criterion, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older
329:
Thus Kaplan applied US law to the issue of copyrightability, rather than UK law as in the first judgment. The second judgment provided a more detailed statement of the court's reasoning than the first judgment did. The court held that photographs were "writings" within the meaning of the
Copyright
193:
On
November 13, 1998, Kaplan granted the defendant's motion for a summary dismissal of the suit. The court applied UK law to determine whether the plaintiff's photographs were copyrightable in the first place, and applied US law to determine whether copyright had been infringed. It determined that
457:
The
Bridgeman case has caused great concern among some museums, many of which receive income from licensing photographic reproductions of objects and works in their collections. Some of them have argued, as above, that the case has limited precedential value, or that (even though it was a federal
348:
qualify for copyright protection. "ndeed", he elaborated, "the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity". He noted that "t is uncontested that
Bridgeman's images are substantially exact reproductions of public domain works, albeit in a different medium".
416:
meshes of existing 3D objects. The appeals court wrote "he law is becoming increasingly clear: one possesses no copyright interest in reproductions ... when these reproductions do nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image". Specifically following
Bridgeman, the appeals court
351:
Although the second judgment was based upon application of US law, Kaplan added that "hile the Court's conclusion as to the law governing copyrightability renders the point moot, the Court is persuaded that plaintiff's copyright claim would fail even if the governing law were that of the United
366:
that "here must be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work", rendering the mere change in medium of a work, on its own, not sufficient for copyrightability. Thus the question of originality and copyrightability of a
169:
Bridgeman sued Corel. It claimed that since no other photographs of the public domain works had been authorized other than those that
Bridgeman itself had been authorized to make, by the museums where the works were held, the only possible source for the digital images on Corel's CD-ROM was
548:
The significance of the case and the doubts that it raised prompted the private Museums Copyright Group in the UK to commission an in-depth report on the case and to seek the opinion of Jonathan Rayner James, Q.C., a barrister who specialized in UK copyright law and a co-author of
150:
called "Professional Photos CD Rom masters" in the UK, the US, and Canada which contained digitized images of paintings by European masters. Corel stated that it had obtained these images from a company called "Off the Wall Images", a company that no longer existed.
321:
The court inferred from the provisions of the BCIA, and the absence of US law to the contrary, that Congress had not granted foreign law the power to determine the issue of copyrightability in US copyright actions. In other words, Congress did not adopt the Second
226:. The plaintiff moved, on November 23, for reconsideration and re-argument, on the grounds that the court's assessment of the copyrightability of the works was in error. In support of this motion it pointed to a certificate of copyright issued by the United States
2404:
421:, the court examined whether color transparencies of public domain works of art were sufficiently original for copyright protection, ultimately holding that, as 'exact photographic copies of public domain works of art,' they were not." The
437:
decision, however, specifically overturned that case: "We are not convinced that the single case to which we are pointed where copyright was awarded for a 'slavish copy' remains good law." The appeals court ruling cited and followed the
1673:
1520:
1515:
1860:
471:, the facts of the case differed. In particular, the plaintiff had not been making any attempt at full fidelity with the works being photographed, and thus the photographs comprised an element of originality. As stated in
603:
work can be considered as 'original'. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.
525:, it serves to raise doubt in UK law as to the originality of photographs that exactly replicate other works of art. An additional problem with taking the case as precedent would be reconciling it with the decision in
689:
303:
116:
52:
103:
Photographic reproductions of visual works in the public domain were not copyrightable because the reproductions involved no originality. Upon reconsideration and reargument, judgment was again entered for
531:, given that an analogy can be made between the skills exercised by a journalist in verbatim reporting of a speech and the skills exercised by a photographer in exactly reproducing a work of art. However,
454:, 54 USPQ2d 1776, 1791 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), where it was ruled that "here is a very broad scope for copyright in photographs, encompassing almost any photograph that reflects more than 'slavish copying'."
1074:
161:
and in digital form. The copyright terms on the paintings themselves had expired, but Bridgeman claimed that it owned a copyright on the photographs. It licensed copies of its photographs for a fee.
1948:
1731:
1447:
367:"slavish copy", even one where the medium changed (i.e. from a painting to a photograph, and thence to a digitization of that photograph), would be decided the same under UK law as under US law.
495:, it actually reinforces it and builds upon it, confirming that an "interpretive dimension or spark of originality" over and above "slavish copying", conferred originality and copyrightability.
343:
Kaplan stated that there is "little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection", citing
594:
of the United Kingdom issued an official guide for individuals and businesses titled "Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet" that offers a judgment similar to that of
170:
Bridgeman's own digitizations of its photographs. It claimed that since it owned the copyright on its photographs, Corel's copies were infringements of its copyright. Both parties moved for
362:
for equivalent case law in the UK, where it had been held that "kill, labour or judgment merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality". Further, the Privy Council had held in
2258:
1844:
2047:
1755:
1708:
1668:
669:
clarified that, in the UK, no new copyright is created in making a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain artwork, and that this has been the case since 2009.
874:
Paul L.C. Torremans (2001). "Choice of Law Regarding Copyright and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Basic Principles". In Timothy H. Lim; Hector L. MacQueen; Calum M. Carmichael (eds.).
2071:
1999:
1924:
1836:
695:
2079:
401:
2063:
2103:
2143:
1440:
448:(1991), explicitly rejecting difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability. This line of reasoning has been followed in other cases, such as
2007:
1908:
1360:
1154:
2266:
1820:
236:. It asserted that the certificate demonstrated the subsistence of copyright. It further argued that the court had mis-applied UK copyright law, by not following
1483:
591:
444:
299:
1335:
533:
396:
587:
The Bridgeman Art Library itself stated in 2006 that it is "looking for a similar test case in the UK or Europe to fight which would strengthen position".
2183:
1916:
1600:
1433:
654:) and provide open access to images of publicly owned, out-of-copyright paintings, prints and drawings so that they are free for the public to reproduce".
311:
2199:
2055:
541:, re-photographing a print, or re-creating the effect of an earlier photograph, would not constitute an original work. Similarly, Lord Oliver's dicta in
1828:
2399:
2167:
1271:
2409:
1788:
1657:
353:
1900:
131:. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience, and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is
2322:
2087:
1991:
1975:
1884:
1691:
2290:
2095:
1058:
1015:
990:
950:
883:
853:
810:
768:
1382:
264:
brief was filed, both parties were given leave to address the points raised by Patry's letter, and the case was re-argued and reconsidered.
2306:
2159:
1932:
598:. Updated 4 January 2021, the section of the guidance titled, "Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?" states that:
450:
1401:
222:
The entry of the first summary judgment caused the court, in the words of Kaplan, to be "bombarded with additional submissions" from the
2314:
2215:
1876:
1558:
1489:
1129:
658:
2419:
2274:
2119:
2031:
1940:
1852:
1622:
1467:
1456:
844:
Lewis A. Kaplan (2002). "The Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation". In John Henry Merryman and Albert Edward Elsen (ed.).
291:
On February 26, 1999, Kaplan again granted the defendant's motion for a summary dismissal of the suit, in a second summary judgment.
2175:
1967:
429:, 177 F. Supp. 265 (S.D.N.Y. 1959), in which the district court enforced a copyright claimed on a reproduction sculpture of Rodin's
1662:
2364:
2231:
1477:
307:
463:
1120:
1031:
2223:
2191:
2127:
1628:
918:
2330:
2298:
1651:
1639:
1352:
376:
314:(BCIA). In particular, he considered sections 3(a) and 4(a) of the BCIA, which amend title 17, chapter 1, § 101 of the
247:, who argued that the court had been incorrect to apply UK law at all. The plaintiff moved for the court to receive an
1812:
616:
439:
358:
132:
2377:
1327:
580:, dating as it does from 1867, no longer reflects the law of originality in the UK, in light of later cases such as
2111:
197:
In the judgment, Kaplan noted that the court would have reached the same result had it applied US law throughout.
2359:
2207:
1616:
563:
Jonathan Rayner James, Press release by Museums Copyright Group (elisions as made by the Museums Copyright Group)
1633:
640:
383:
is not binding precedent on other federal or state courts, but it has nevertheless been highly influential as
1293:"The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art"
1714:
1645:
1508:
1493:
504:
323:
1503:
1248:
1116:
666:
254:
227:
2135:
1983:
1584:
1568:
1553:
1548:
1543:
981:
Catherine Colston; Kirsty Middleton (2005). "Copyright Principles, Copyright Works and Related Rights".
538:
154:
1053:. House of Commons: Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Great Britain (The Stationery Office). Ev 56.
237:
1563:
1239:
Landes, William M. (2000). "Copyright, Borrowed Images and Appropriation Art: An Economic Approach".
624:
384:
2370:
1796:
1409:
1253:
965:
678:
612:
336:
1194:
1868:
1804:
1386:
1220:
569:
the relevant museum), would constitute originality, per Laddie, and not merely a "slavish copy".
315:
1764:
1498:
1314:
1164:
1159:
1054:
1011:
986:
946:
879:
849:
806:
764:
636:
232:
210:
205:
143:
2349:
2023:
1780:
1472:
1304:
1258:
1210:
1172:
1150:
1133:
1096:
608:
413:
295:
244:
171:
2250:
2151:
2039:
1892:
1772:
576:
does highlight several points in UK law. For example, it draws attention to the fact that
344:
331:
182:
1155:"Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last"
1075:"Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet, updated 4 January 2021"
267:
Kaplan commented on the plaintiff's motions in the subsequent summary judgment, saying:
2414:
2015:
904:
699:– a case where foreign law was applied in the US for determining the ownership of works
620:
158:
607:
In November 2017, 27 prominent art historians, museum curators and critics (including
2393:
2354:
1425:
527:
249:
120:
628:
157:
possessed a large library of photographs of paintings by European masters, as both
17:
1035:
826:
651:
632:
522:
128:
1353:"Must You Pay to Use Photos of Public Domain Artworks? No, Says a Legal Expert"
1049:
Bridgeman Art Library (2006). "Memorandum submitted by Bridgeman Art Library".
922:
215:
1404:(Response from the Museums Copyright Group (UK), which opposes the decision.)
1318:
1168:
1176:
1137:
1101:
943:
Permissions, a survival guide: blunt talk about art as intellectual property
903: (United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit June 17, 2008),
645:
223:
124:
1395:
553:. Rayner James' opinion, as reported by the group in a press release, was:
1674:
WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act
1276:: Claiming Copyright in Photographic Reproductions of Public Domain Works"
1099:; et al. (November 6, 2017). "Museums' fees for image reproduction".
545:
held that the effort of copying, itself, does not constitute originality.
1521:
Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States
1309:
1292:
684:
2405:
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York cases
1516:
Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States
1262:
1224:
80:
36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1731, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1110
1034:(Press release). Museums Copyright Group. December 1999. Archived from
1215:
461:
Others who reject the judgment on the Bridgeman case have pointed to
147:
690:
National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute
479:
and went to great lengths to demonstrate that the material facts of
458:
court case) it has no application outside of the state of New York.
41:
1418:
514:
304:
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
204:
117:
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
53:
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
185:
in the Southern District Court of New York issued two judgments.
572:
However, the review of UK authorities in the second judgment of
1429:
1006:
Hector L. MacQueen; Charlotte Waelde; Graeme T. Laurie (2007).
878:. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 117–123.
218:. Bridgeman's image of this was the example used in the case.
848:(4th ed.). Kluwer Law International. pp. 405–408.
115:, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the
513:
is not binding upon UK courts. However, because it follows
93:
Judgment for defendants, 25 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
1010:(2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 52–55.
294:
In the judgment Kaplan considered Patry's arguments, the
2259:
Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc.
1051:
Protecting and Preserving Our Heritage: Written Evidence
919:"Copyright Protection and Subject Matter in Photographs"
230:
for one of Bridgeman's photographs, a photograph of the
2048:
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
1709:
Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act
1669:
Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
63:
The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corporation
2072:
Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.
2000:
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
1837:
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
1420:
Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp
1199:: Copyright, Museums, and Public Domain Works of Art"
696:
Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.
451:
Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp
2080:
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp.
2242:
1959:
1754:
1745:
1724:
1701:
1684:
1609:
1593:
1577:
1536:
1529:
976:
974:
390:Several federal courts have followed the ruling in
279:
The Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation
243:The court also received an unsolicited letter from
97:
89:
84:
76:
68:
58:
48:
34:
2064:Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.
1008:Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy
985:(2nd ed.). Routledge Cavendish. p. 273.
679:Copyright protection of photographs in Switzerland
537:also held that a slavish copy, such as re-using a
387:, and is widely followed by other federal courts.
1241:U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper
2144:Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.
1326:Saranow Schultz, Jennifer (September 21, 2010).
119:, which ruled that exact photographic copies of
2008:Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
1909:American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
945:. University of Chicago Press. pp. 42–46.
876:On scrolls, artefacts and intellectual property
681:for the equivalent leading cases in Switzerland
600:
555:
269:
2267:Broderbund Software Inc. v. Unison World, Inc.
2104:Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l
1821:White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co.
805:. Allworth Communications, Inc. pp. 6–9.
803:The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook
534:Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co.
487:. Bielstein concludes from this that far from
467:as providing a contrary decision. However, in
1484:Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices
1441:
505:Photography and the law § United Kingdom
445:Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service
300:Article One of the United States Constitution
127:in the United States because the copies lack
8:
2184:Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha
1829:Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States
1601:Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988
936:
934:
932:
869:
867:
865:
839:
837:
835:
312:Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988
2200:Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
2056:American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.
1751:
1533:
1448:
1434:
1426:
1297:Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies
1032:"Copyright in Photographs of Works of Art"
260:The plaintiff's motions were granted. The
31:
2168:Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.
1402:Copyrights in Photographs in Works of Art
1328:"When It's Illegal to Photograph Artwork"
1308:
1252:
1214:
754:
752:
750:
748:
746:
744:
742:
740:
738:
736:
734:
732:
1901:Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
1415:Comparable decision from the Netherlands
966:Schiffer Publ'g, Ltd. v. Chronicle Books
730:
728:
726:
724:
722:
720:
718:
716:
714:
712:
27:U.S. legal case on copyright originality
1789:Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
1658:Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998
1280:Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal
917:Filler, Stephen C. (December 9, 2006).
796:
794:
792:
790:
788:
786:
784:
782:
780:
708:
2323:Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc.
2096:A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
1992:Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates
1976:Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.
1885:Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S. A.
1692:Family Entertainment and Copyright Act
968:, 350 F. Supp. 2d 613 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
464:Schiffer Publishing v. Chronicle Books
402:Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
400:, 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008), the
2291:RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.
1363:from the original on October 19, 2013
1351:Starr, Bernard (September 12, 2012).
1203:University of Pennsylvania Law Review
763:. Hart Publishing. pp. 103–104.
551:Copinger and Skone James on copyright
7:
2307:Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC
2283:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
2160:Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
1933:Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
1338:from the original on January 4, 2014
574:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
511:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
425:opinion also revisited a 1959 case,
112:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
35:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
2315:Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.
2216:Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
2088:Nunez v. Caribbean Int'l News Corp.
1949:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith
1877:MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
1559:International Copyright Act of 1891
1291:Petri, Grischka (August 28, 2014).
2275:Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena
2120:In re Aimster Copyright Litigation
2032:Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.
1941:Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
1853:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
1623:Copyright Remedy Clarification Act
1457:Copyright law of the United States
25:
2176:Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.
1968:Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc.
1077:. UK Intellectual Property Office
123:images could not be protected by
2400:United States copyright case law
1925:Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com
1917:Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands
1663:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
983:Modern Intellectual Property Law
846:Law, ethics, and the visual arts
281:, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (SDNY 1999)
40:
2365:Home Recording Rights Coalition
1383:Full text of the court's ruling
427:Alva Studios, Inc. v. Winninger
257:, addressing the UK law issue.
2410:1999 in United States case law
1478:United States Copyright Office
1389:, which is usually redirected)
1270:Colin T. Cameron (Fall 2006).
308:Universal Copyright Convention
1:
2224:Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
2192:Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc.
2128:NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute
1629:Copyright Renewal Act of 1992
408:, extending the reasoning in
352:Kingdom." He referred to the
2331:Hachette v. Internet Archive
2299:Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co.
1652:Copyright Term Extension Act
1640:Uruguay Round Agreements Act
592:Intellectual Property Office
1813:Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus
941:Susan M. Bielstein (2006).
440:United States Supreme Court
359:Interlego v Tyco Industries
2436:
2112:Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.
1398:(in favor of the decision)
502:
133:copyrightable under US law
2420:Copyrightability case law
2345:
2208:Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc
1617:Visual Artists Rights Act
1463:
558:as a drawing or painting
102:
39:
2378:You Wouldn't Steal a Car
1634:Audio Home Recording Act
1193:Allan, Robin J. (2006).
371:Subsequent jurisprudence
1715:Music Modernization Act
1646:No Electronic Theft Act
1509:Section 108 Study Group
801:Nancy E. Wolff (2007).
2360:Don't Copy That Floppy
2115:(9th Cir. 2002 / 2003)
1861:Quality King v. L'anza
1504:Register of Copyrights
605:
590:In November 2015, the
566:
377:federal district court
284:
255:The Wallace Collection
228:Register of Copyrights
219:
2136:BMG Music v. Gonzalez
1984:Eltra Corp. v. Ringer
1585:Copyright Act of 1976
1569:Copyright Act of 1909
1554:Copyright Act of 1870
1549:Copyright Act of 1831
1544:Copyright Act of 1790
1410:Van Dale/Romme-arrest
1153:(December 29, 2023).
1119:(November 20, 2023),
759:Simon Stokes (2001).
539:photographic negative
483:differ from those of
419:Bridgeman Art Library
375:As the decision of a
208:
155:Bridgeman Art Library
1564:Printing Act of 1895
1310:10.5334/jcms.1021217
1038:on December 5, 2004.
925:on December 9, 2006.
509:As a US court case,
385:persuasive authority
2371:Nimmer on Copyright
2254:(C.C.D. Mass. 1841)
1797:Banks v. Manchester
1263:10.2139/ssrn.253332
1117:Lord Justice Arnold
900:Meshwerks v. Toyota
667:Lord Justice Arnold
613:Waldemar Januszczak
499:Relevance to UK law
397:Meshwerks v. Toyota
337:Nimmer on Copyright
1869:Eldred v. Ashcroft
1805:Callaghan v. Myers
1332:The New York Times
596:Bridgeman v. Corel
406:Bridgeman v. Corel
316:United States Code
220:
183:Judge Lewis Kaplan
18:Corel v. Bridgeman
2387:
2386:
2341:
2340:
2294:(W.D. Wash. 2000)
1765:Wheaton v. Peters
1741:
1740:
1499:Copyright Catalog
1160:The Art Newspaper
1097:Grosvenor, Bendor
1060:978-0-215-02833-4
1017:978-0-19-926339-4
992:978-1-85941-816-1
952:978-0-226-04638-9
885:978-1-84127-212-2
855:978-90-411-9882-2
812:978-1-58115-477-1
770:978-1-84113-225-9
761:Art and copyright
637:Nicholas Goodison
330:Clause. It cited
277:Lewis A. Kaplan,
233:Laughing Cavalier
211:Laughing Cavalier
201:Plaintiff motions
144:Corel Corporation
108:
107:
72:February 18, 1999
16:(Redirected from
2427:
2350:Berne Convention
2326:(C.D. Cal. 2015)
2278:(M.D. Fla. 1993)
2270:(N.D. Cal. 1986)
2232:Naruto v. Slater
2024:Whelan v. Jaslow
1781:Trade-Mark Cases
1752:
1534:
1473:Copyright Clause
1450:
1443:
1436:
1427:
1414:
1372:
1370:
1368:
1347:
1345:
1343:
1322:
1312:
1287:
1272:"In Defiance of
1266:
1256:
1235:
1233:
1231:
1218:
1216:10.2307/40041330
1181:
1180:
1151:Bendor Grosvenor
1147:
1141:
1140:
1127:
1113:
1107:
1106:
1093:
1087:
1086:
1084:
1082:
1071:
1065:
1064:
1046:
1040:
1039:
1028:
1022:
1021:
1003:
997:
996:
978:
969:
963:
957:
956:
938:
927:
926:
921:. Archived from
914:
908:
902:
896:
890:
889:
871:
860:
859:
841:
830:
823:
817:
816:
798:
775:
774:
756:
657:A November 2023
609:Bendor Grosvenor
564:
404:favorably cited
296:Copyright Clause
282:
245:William F. Patry
172:summary judgment
135:is originality.
44:
32:
21:
2435:
2434:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2383:
2337:
2334:(S.D.N.Y. 2023)
2318:(S.D.N.Y. 2013)
2310:(S.D.N.Y. 2010)
2302:(S.D.N.Y. 2005)
2286:(S.D.N.Y. 1999)
2262:(E.D.N.Y. 1973)
2251:Folsom v. Marsh
2238:
2235:(9th Cir. 2018)
2227:(9th Cir. 2015)
2211:(9th Cir. 2013)
2195:(9th Cir. 2012)
2179:(9th Cir. 2010)
2171:(2nd Cir. 2008)
2163:(9th Cir. 2006)
2155:(2nd Cir. 2006)
2152:Blanch v. Koons
2147:(2nd Cir. 2006)
2139:(7th Cir. 2005)
2123:(7th Cir. 2003)
2107:(5th Cir. 2002)
2099:(9th Cir. 2001)
2091:(1st Cir. 2000)
2083:(9th Cir. 2000)
2067:(9th Cir. 1997)
2059:(2nd Cir. 1995)
2043:(2nd Cir. 1992)
2040:Rogers v. Koons
2035:(5th Cir. 1988)
2019:(9th Cir. 1986)
2003:(7th Cir. 1983)
1995:(9th Cir. 1978)
1987:(4th Cir. 1978)
1979:(9th Cir. 1970)
1955:
1893:Golan v. Holder
1773:Baker v. Selden
1747:
1737:
1720:
1697:
1680:
1605:
1589:
1573:
1525:
1459:
1454:
1412:
1392:Interpretation
1379:
1366:
1364:
1357:Huffington Post
1350:
1341:
1339:
1325:
1290:
1269:
1238:
1229:
1227:
1192:
1189:
1187:Further reading
1184:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1130:Court of Appeal
1125:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1080:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1061:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1018:
1005:
1004:
1000:
993:
980:
979:
972:
964:
960:
953:
940:
939:
930:
916:
915:
911:
898:
897:
893:
886:
873:
872:
863:
856:
843:
842:
833:
824:
820:
813:
800:
799:
778:
771:
758:
757:
710:
706:
675:
663:THJ v. Sheridan
565:
562:
507:
501:
373:
345:prior judgments
332:Melville Nimmer
289:
287:Second judgment
283:
276:
203:
191:
180:
167:
141:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2433:
2431:
2423:
2422:
2417:
2412:
2407:
2402:
2392:
2391:
2385:
2384:
2382:
2381:
2374:
2367:
2362:
2357:
2352:
2346:
2343:
2342:
2339:
2338:
2336:
2335:
2327:
2319:
2311:
2303:
2295:
2287:
2279:
2271:
2263:
2255:
2246:
2244:
2240:
2239:
2237:
2236:
2228:
2220:
2219:(2d Cir. 2015)
2212:
2204:
2203:(2d Cir. 2012)
2196:
2188:
2187:(2d Cir. 2011)
2180:
2172:
2164:
2156:
2148:
2140:
2132:
2131:(2d Cir. 2004)
2124:
2116:
2108:
2100:
2092:
2084:
2076:
2075:(2d Cir. 1998)
2068:
2060:
2052:
2051:(2d Cir. 1992)
2044:
2036:
2028:
2027:(3d Cir. 1986)
2020:
2016:Fisher v. Dees
2012:
2011:(3d Cir. 1983)
2004:
1996:
1988:
1980:
1972:
1971:(2d Cir. 1964)
1963:
1961:
1960:Appeals courts
1957:
1956:
1954:
1953:
1945:
1937:
1929:
1921:
1913:
1905:
1897:
1889:
1881:
1873:
1865:
1857:
1849:
1845:Feist v. Rural
1841:
1833:
1825:
1817:
1809:
1801:
1793:
1785:
1777:
1769:
1760:
1758:
1749:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1738:
1736:
1735:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1721:
1719:
1718:
1712:
1705:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1696:
1695:
1688:
1686:
1682:
1681:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1671:
1660:
1655:
1649:
1643:
1637:
1631:
1626:
1620:
1613:
1611:
1607:
1606:
1604:
1603:
1597:
1595:
1591:
1590:
1588:
1587:
1581:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1572:
1571:
1566:
1561:
1556:
1551:
1546:
1540:
1538:
1531:
1527:
1526:
1524:
1523:
1518:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1506:
1501:
1496:
1487:
1475:
1470:
1464:
1461:
1460:
1455:
1453:
1452:
1445:
1438:
1430:
1424:
1423:
1416:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1399:
1396:About the case
1390:
1378:
1377:External links
1375:
1374:
1373:
1348:
1323:
1288:
1267:
1254:10.1.1.465.759
1236:
1209:(4): 961–989.
1188:
1185:
1183:
1182:
1142:
1122:THJ v Sheridan
1108:
1088:
1066:
1059:
1041:
1023:
1016:
998:
991:
970:
958:
951:
928:
909:
891:
884:
861:
854:
831:
818:
811:
776:
769:
707:
705:
702:
701:
700:
692:
687:
682:
674:
671:
641:Malcolm Rogers
621:Janina Ramirez
560:
523:Justice Laddie
503:Main article:
500:
497:
491:contradicting
372:
369:
288:
285:
274:
202:
199:
190:
189:First judgment
187:
179:
176:
166:
163:
159:transparencies
140:
137:
106:
105:
100:
99:
95:
94:
91:
87:
86:
82:
81:
78:
74:
73:
70:
66:
65:
60:
59:Full case name
56:
55:
50:
46:
45:
37:
36:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2432:
2421:
2418:
2416:
2413:
2411:
2408:
2406:
2403:
2401:
2398:
2397:
2395:
2379:
2375:
2373:
2372:
2368:
2366:
2363:
2361:
2358:
2356:
2355:Uruguay Round
2353:
2351:
2348:
2347:
2344:
2333:
2332:
2328:
2325:
2324:
2320:
2317:
2316:
2312:
2309:
2308:
2304:
2301:
2300:
2296:
2293:
2292:
2288:
2285:
2284:
2280:
2277:
2276:
2272:
2269:
2268:
2264:
2261:
2260:
2256:
2253:
2252:
2248:
2247:
2245:
2241:
2234:
2233:
2229:
2226:
2225:
2221:
2218:
2217:
2213:
2210:
2209:
2205:
2202:
2201:
2197:
2194:
2193:
2189:
2186:
2185:
2181:
2178:
2177:
2173:
2170:
2169:
2165:
2162:
2161:
2157:
2154:
2153:
2149:
2146:
2145:
2141:
2138:
2137:
2133:
2130:
2129:
2125:
2122:
2121:
2117:
2114:
2113:
2109:
2106:
2105:
2101:
2098:
2097:
2093:
2090:
2089:
2085:
2082:
2081:
2077:
2074:
2073:
2069:
2066:
2065:
2061:
2058:
2057:
2053:
2050:
2049:
2045:
2042:
2041:
2037:
2034:
2033:
2029:
2026:
2025:
2021:
2018:
2017:
2013:
2010:
2009:
2005:
2002:
2001:
1997:
1994:
1993:
1989:
1986:
1985:
1981:
1978:
1977:
1973:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1964:
1962:
1958:
1951:
1950:
1946:
1943:
1942:
1938:
1935:
1934:
1930:
1927:
1926:
1922:
1919:
1918:
1914:
1911:
1910:
1906:
1903:
1902:
1898:
1895:
1894:
1890:
1887:
1886:
1882:
1879:
1878:
1874:
1871:
1870:
1866:
1863:
1862:
1858:
1855:
1854:
1850:
1847:
1846:
1842:
1839:
1838:
1834:
1831:
1830:
1826:
1823:
1822:
1818:
1815:
1814:
1810:
1807:
1806:
1802:
1799:
1798:
1794:
1791:
1790:
1786:
1783:
1782:
1778:
1775:
1774:
1770:
1767:
1766:
1762:
1761:
1759:
1757:
1756:Supreme Court
1753:
1750:
1744:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1727:
1723:
1716:
1713:
1710:
1707:
1706:
1704:
1700:
1693:
1690:
1689:
1687:
1683:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1667:
1666:
1664:
1661:
1659:
1656:
1653:
1650:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1635:
1632:
1630:
1627:
1624:
1621:
1618:
1615:
1614:
1612:
1608:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1596:
1592:
1586:
1583:
1582:
1580:
1576:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1552:
1550:
1547:
1545:
1542:
1541:
1539:
1535:
1532:
1528:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1505:
1502:
1500:
1497:
1495:
1492: →
1491:
1488:
1486:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1476:
1474:
1471:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1451:
1446:
1444:
1439:
1437:
1432:
1431:
1428:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1411:
1408:
1403:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1393:
1391:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1376:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1275:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1237:
1226:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1198:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1156:
1152:
1146:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1124:
1123:
1118:
1112:
1109:
1105:. p. 34.
1104:
1103:
1098:
1092:
1089:
1076:
1070:
1067:
1062:
1056:
1052:
1045:
1042:
1037:
1033:
1027:
1024:
1019:
1013:
1009:
1002:
999:
994:
988:
984:
977:
975:
971:
967:
962:
959:
954:
948:
944:
937:
935:
933:
929:
924:
920:
913:
910:
906:
901:
895:
892:
887:
881:
877:
870:
868:
866:
862:
857:
851:
847:
840:
838:
836:
832:
828:
822:
819:
814:
808:
804:
797:
795:
793:
791:
789:
787:
785:
783:
781:
777:
772:
766:
762:
755:
753:
751:
749:
747:
745:
743:
741:
739:
737:
735:
733:
731:
729:
727:
725:
723:
721:
719:
717:
715:
713:
709:
703:
698:
697:
693:
691:
688:
686:
683:
680:
677:
676:
672:
670:
668:
664:
660:
655:
653:
648:
647:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
604:
599:
597:
593:
588:
585:
583:
579:
575:
570:
559:
554:
552:
546:
544:
540:
536:
535:
530:
529:
528:Walter v Lane
524:
520:
516:
512:
506:
498:
496:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
459:
455:
453:
452:
447:
446:
441:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
393:
388:
386:
382:
378:
370:
368:
365:
361:
360:
355:
354:Privy Council
349:
346:
341:
339:
338:
333:
327:
325:
319:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
286:
280:
273:
268:
265:
263:
262:amicus curiae
258:
256:
252:
251:
250:amicus curiae
246:
241:
239:
235:
234:
229:
225:
217:
213:
212:
207:
200:
198:
195:
188:
186:
184:
177:
175:
173:
164:
162:
160:
156:
152:
149:
145:
138:
136:
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:public domain
118:
114:
113:
101:
96:
92:
90:Prior actions
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
64:
61:
57:
54:
51:
47:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
2369:
2329:
2321:
2313:
2305:
2297:
2289:
2282:
2281:
2273:
2265:
2257:
2249:
2243:Lower courts
2230:
2222:
2214:
2206:
2198:
2190:
2182:
2174:
2166:
2158:
2150:
2142:
2134:
2126:
2118:
2110:
2102:
2094:
2086:
2078:
2070:
2062:
2054:
2046:
2038:
2030:
2022:
2014:
2006:
1998:
1990:
1982:
1974:
1966:
1947:
1939:
1931:
1923:
1915:
1907:
1899:
1891:
1883:
1875:
1867:
1859:
1851:
1843:
1835:
1827:
1819:
1811:
1803:
1795:
1787:
1779:
1771:
1763:
1482:
1419:
1387:the original
1385:(archive of
1365:. Retrieved
1356:
1340:. Retrieved
1331:
1300:
1296:
1283:
1279:
1273:
1244:
1240:
1228:. Retrieved
1206:
1202:
1196:
1158:
1145:
1121:
1111:
1100:
1091:
1079:. Retrieved
1069:
1063:. HC 912-II.
1050:
1044:
1036:the original
1026:
1007:
1001:
982:
961:
942:
923:the original
912:
899:
894:
875:
845:
821:
802:
760:
694:
662:
659:Appeal Court
656:
644:
629:David Solkin
606:
601:
595:
589:
586:
581:
578:Graves' Case
577:
573:
571:
567:
556:
550:
547:
542:
532:
526:
521:, and cites
518:
510:
508:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
462:
460:
456:
449:
443:
442:decision in
434:
431:Hand of God.
430:
426:
422:
418:
412:to cover 3D
409:
405:
395:
391:
389:
380:
374:
363:
357:
350:
342:
335:
328:
320:
293:
290:
278:
270:
266:
261:
259:
248:
242:
238:Graves' Case
231:
221:
209:
196:
192:
181:
168:
153:
142:
111:
110:
109:
85:Case history
62:
29:
1748:and rulings
665:, 2023) by
661:judgement (
652:Rijksmuseum
643:) wrote to
633:Hugh Belsey
625:Robin Simon
617:Martin Kemp
417:wrote, "In
324:Restatement
253:brief from
214:, 1624, by
129:originality
104:defendants.
2394:Categories
1746:Precedents
1413:(in Dutch)
1177:Q124044230
1138:Q124044396
829:715 (1869)
704:References
310:, and the
216:Frans Hals
1468:17 U.S.C.
1319:1364-0429
1274:Bridgeman
1249:CiteSeerX
1197:Bridgeman
1169:0960-6556
1102:The Times
1081:March 15,
646:The Times
582:Interlego
543:Interlego
519:Interlego
493:Bridgeman
485:Bridgeman
477:Bridgeman
435:Meshwerks
423:Meshwerks
414:wireframe
410:Bridgeman
392:Bridgeman
381:Bridgeman
364:Interlego
224:plaintiff
125:copyright
1732:CASE Act
1537:Pre-1976
1530:Statutes
1367:June 19,
1361:Archived
1342:June 19,
1336:Archived
1286:(1): 31.
1225:40041330
1173:Wikidata
1134:Wikidata
685:Fair use
673:See also
561:—
489:Schiffer
481:Schiffer
473:Schiffer
469:Schiffer
356:case of
275:—
178:Judgment
77:Citation
1665:(1998)
1230:May 15,
1195:"After
146:sold a
98:Holding
69:Decided
1952:(2023)
1944:(2021)
1936:(2020)
1928:(2019)
1920:(2017)
1912:(2014)
1904:(2013)
1896:(2012)
1888:(2010)
1880:(2005)
1872:(2003)
1864:(1998)
1856:(1994)
1848:(1991)
1840:(1984)
1832:(1975)
1824:(1908)
1816:(1908)
1808:(1888)
1800:(1888)
1792:(1884)
1784:(1879)
1776:(1879)
1768:(1834)
1734:(2020)
1717:(2018)
1711:(2014)
1694:(2005)
1654:(1998)
1648:(1994)
1642:(1994)
1636:(1992)
1625:(1990)
1619:(1990)
1317:
1251:
1223:
1175:
1167:
1136:
1057:
1014:
989:
949:
882:
852:
809:
767:
639:, and
635:, Sir
306:, the
302:, the
165:Action
148:CD-ROM
2415:Corel
1725:2020s
1702:2010s
1685:2000s
1610:1990s
1594:1980s
1578:1970s
1303:(1).
1221:JSTOR
1126:(PDF)
515:dicta
394:. In
139:Facts
49:Court
1490:CARP
1369:2014
1344:2014
1315:ISSN
1232:2015
1165:ISSN
1083:2021
1055:ISBN
1012:ISBN
987:ISBN
947:ISBN
905:Text
880:ISBN
850:ISBN
827:LRQB
807:ISBN
765:ISBN
433:The
1494:CRB
1305:doi
1259:doi
1245:113
1211:doi
1207:155
517:in
334:'s
298:in
2396::
1359:.
1355:.
1334:.
1330:.
1313:.
1301:12
1299:.
1295:.
1284:15
1282:.
1278:.
1257:.
1247:.
1243:.
1219:.
1205:.
1201:.
1171:.
1163:.
1157:.
1132:,
1128:,
973:^
931:^
864:^
834:^
825:4
779:^
711:^
631:,
627:,
623:,
619:,
615:,
611:,
584:.
379:,
318:.
240:.
174:.
2380:"
2376:"
1449:e
1442:t
1435:v
1371:.
1346:.
1321:.
1307::
1265:.
1261::
1234:.
1213::
1179:.
1085:.
1020:.
995:.
955:.
907:.
888:.
858:.
815:.
773:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
