Amalyah's cautionary note is important and nearly correct. The Bridgeman v Corel decision is case law in the jurisdiction in which it was decided, namely the Southern District of New York. And there have been follow-on decisions that provide nuance. From Wikipdeia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation Several federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman. In Meshwerks v. Toyota[2], the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit favorably cited Bridgeman v. Corel, extending the reasoning in Bridgeman to cover 3D wireframe meshes of existing 3D objects. The appeals court wrote "[T]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 wrote, "In Bridgeman Art Library, 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 appeals court ruling cited and followed the United States Supreme Court decision in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (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 Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp (2000), where it was ruled that there is "very broad scope for copyright in photographs, encompassing almost any photograph that reflects more than 'slavish copying'."[1] But this is still of very limited applicability. ken Kenneth Hamma +1 310 270 8008 khamma at me.com 368 Patel Place Palm Springs CA 92264 On May 6, 2009, at 3:40 AM, Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] wrote: > Stanley: > > The decision in the Bridgeman v. Corel case is binding upon the two > parties in that case, period. It is neither legislation nor a > Supreme Court decision, and therefore is not "law." It is not a > change in the US copyright law, nor a new fair use exception. It is > a precedent that may be taken into consideration by a court deciding > future cases. And it obviously has no bearing on the copyright laws > of other countries. > > > Amalyah Keshet > Head of Image Resources & Copyright Management > The Israel Museum, Jerusalem > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf > Of Stanley Smith > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:21 PM > To: mcn-l at mcn.edu > Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Image Sizes > > > If you think that your images are not out there, you are mistaken. > At the Getty we have taken pains to manage how our images migrate > from our walls, but a quick Google image search of "Irises" and "Van > Gogh" will yield hundreds of hits (the most hilarious of which is a > line of dog-themed ceramic plates with the painting serving as > background to visages of various breeds). This is not too > concerning, as the artwork itself is in the public domain, and > Bridgeman v. Corel says that we can't claim photographic copyright- > so all's fair in love and war. > > Speaking of Bridgeman, though, I recently tried to order a print of > the same painting from Bridgeman's website. I am conducting research > for a possible print-on-demand service at the Getty --(yes Will, if > there is money to be made we should be the ones making it!) -- I > wanted to see what other commercial ventures were doing with our > images-mostly a quality survey. I foolish used my Getty mailing > address when placing the order (a 20 x 24 archival inkjet print on > fine-art paper for about $70). Two days later I got an email from > Bridgeman stating: > > "We regret to inform you that your order of 'Irises,1889' (supplier > code BAL40070) cannot be processed due to the transparency being > unsuitable for reproduction. The Bridgeman Art Library have advised > that the quality of this particular print would be compromised by > enlarging it beyond the image size and as a result we have been > forced to cancel and refund your order. The image will be removed > from our site within the next couple of days to avoid any future > disappointment. > > Even Bridgeman was nervous about copyright issues! Irises was > removed from their website the next day. There is really no > possible way to prevent your images from getting out in the world. > Those CD's or transparencies that you have sent for scholar requests > or publications over the years are still out there, and can fall > into any number of hands. Current imaging software is very good at > "rezing" up small image image files into ones that can be used for > print. Current stitching software can easily reconstruct Zoomify > panes into a very high resolution image. Even if you disable the > ability to right-click an image for download, nothing can stop > someone from using a screen grab. > > The best we can do, I think, is to make sure that recipients of our > images know exactly what their usage rights are. But we should not > be surprised when some people ignore our directives. The PLUS > coalition has a great product that helps track and enforce image > rights, and they are developing a profile that is specific to museums. > > A couple of years ago I was exploring other ways to track our images > in the "cloud". As a test, I gave a company called Idee a set of > 400 jpegs of paintings from our collection. They had developed > software that crawls the web looking for images based not on text > data, but on the images themselves. The results of this test were > astonishing-they had hundreds of hits. Ultimately it was not > technology that we were willing to adopt-one reason was who has time > to sent hundreds of cease-and-desist letters to obscure websites, > some of which may have had the images legitimately? > > > Stanley Smith > Manager, Imaging Services > J. Paul Getty Museum > 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1000 > Los Angeles, CA 90049-1687 > (310) 440-7286 > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum > Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) > > To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu > > To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l > > The MCN-L archives can be found at: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/ > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum > Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) > > To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu > > To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l > > The MCN-L archives can be found at: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
