THE COMPLICATIONS OF   BRIDGEMAN AND COPYRIGHT (MIS)USE         Katherine L. Kelley      University of Wisconsin-Madison  ...
SUMMARYBridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp showed thatreproductive photography is not copyrightable.Considered in th...
BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARYLeading source of high quality reproductive imagesof fine artOffices in London, Paris, New York, and Be...
COREL CORPORATIONCanadian software companyOriginally created graphic design softwareNow creates software in the digital me...
BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD.      V. COREL CORP.The Conflict:  Corel sold a CD-ROM set of 700  digital reproductive images. ...
BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD.      V. COREL CORP.The Decision:  Bridgeman did not have copyright over the  reproductions.  J...
BURROW-GILES LITHOGRAPHIC    CO V. SARONY (1884)Napoleon Sarony sued Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. forselling unauthorized...
FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. V. RURAL   TELEPHONE SERVICE CO (1991) Rural sued Feist for publishing a telephone book using unl...
APPLYING BURROW-GILES     AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMANBurrow-Giles:      Bridgeman:      Feist:Photographs     Can a photograph ...
APPLYING BURROW-GILES AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMANBurrow-Giles: Are all photographs copyrightable?
APPLYING BURROW-GILES AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMANBurrow-Giles: Are all photographs copyrightable?Most are.Reproductivephotograp...
APPLYING BURROW-GILES AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMANFeist: Is a “creative spark” inherent in the productionof any photograph or is...
APPLYING BURROW-GILES AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMANFeist: Is a “creative spark” inherent in the productionof any photograph or is...
THE REACTION:   IGNORE BRIDGEMANBridgeman Art Library: “All images supplied by the BridgemanArt Library are copyrighted ph...
NO TEETHThese copyright claims onlyhold power as warnings.5If a “copyright infringer”were ever taken to court, it islikely...
EFFECT ON ARTISTS AND   ART HISTORIANSThese warnings are enough to dissuade artists and stifleart historical discourse.Coli...
WHY ASSERT                   COPYRIGHT?                            Financial gain.                            Bridgeman’s ...
CONCLUSIONSCopyright was created to encourage innovation.Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp shows thatexact photogr...
REFERENCES[1] Bridgeman: The World’s leading Source of Fine Art, Cultural and Historical Images. Bridgeman ArtCulture Hist...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

THE COMPLICATIONS OF BRIDGEMAN AND COPYRIGHT (MIS)USE

736 views
577 views

Published on

Katherine L. Kelley presentation for "New Voices in the Profession" session at the VRA + ARLIS/NA 2nd Joint Conference in Minneapolis, MN.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
736
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

THE COMPLICATIONS OF BRIDGEMAN AND COPYRIGHT (MIS)USE

  1. 1. THE COMPLICATIONS OF BRIDGEMAN AND COPYRIGHT (MIS)USE Katherine L. Kelley University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Library and Information Studies
  2. 2. SUMMARYBridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp showed thatreproductive photography is not copyrightable.Considered in the decision are two precedent-settingcourt cases that show: Photography often is copyrightable. Facts often are not copyrightable.Art museums and libraries are ignoring the decisionand hinder artists and art historians.
  3. 3. BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARYLeading source of high quality reproductive imagesof fine artOffices in London, Paris, New York, and BerlinArchives contain images from over 8,000 collectionsand more than 29,000 artists.1Licensor of art images used in publications
  4. 4. COREL CORPORATIONCanadian software companyOriginally created graphic design softwareNow creates software in the digital media industry
  5. 5. BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. V. COREL CORP.The Conflict: Corel sold a CD-ROM set of 700 digital reproductive images. Bridgeman also owned and claimed copyright over 120 of Source: Wikimedia Commons the images. In 1998, the Bridgeman Art Library sued Corel for copyright infringement.
  6. 6. BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. V. COREL CORP.The Decision: Bridgeman did not have copyright over the reproductions. Judge Kaplan: “While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality—indeed the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity.”
  7. 7. BURROW-GILES LITHOGRAPHIC CO V. SARONY (1884)Napoleon Sarony sued Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. forselling unauthorized copies ofhis original photograph.Burrow-Giles argued: aphotograph is not a writing nor“the production of an author”Decided that Sarony did havecopyright over the photograph Oscar Wilde, No. 18, Napoleon Sarony, 1882 Source: Wikimedia Commons
  8. 8. FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. V. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO (1991) Rural sued Feist for publishing a telephone book using unlicensed information from Rural. Decided that compilations of facts, without a “creative spark” are not copyrightable. Further, copyright is not granted to hard work alone. Feist won the case. Source: Wikimedia Commons
  9. 9. APPLYING BURROW-GILES AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMANBurrow-Giles: Bridgeman: Feist:Photographs Can a photograph Facts can be of a fact be cannot becopyrighted. copyrighted? copyrighted.
  10. 10. APPLYING BURROW-GILES AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMANBurrow-Giles: Are all photographs copyrightable?
  11. 11. APPLYING BURROW-GILES AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMANBurrow-Giles: Are all photographs copyrightable?Most are.Reproductivephotography ismost likely theonly case in whichphotography isnot copyrightable. Katherine near Look Mickey, Patricia Kelley, 2007
  12. 12. APPLYING BURROW-GILES AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMANFeist: Is a “creative spark” inherent in the productionof any photograph or is a reproductive photographonly a slavish copy of a “fact” (the original artwork)?
  13. 13. APPLYING BURROW-GILES AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMANFeist: Is a “creative spark” inherent in the productionof any photograph or is a reproductive photographonly a slavish copy of a “fact” (the original artwork)? Photographers must make choices such as lighting and lenses. Reproductive photography is intended to make an image as true to the original asMona Lisa, Leonardo Da Vinci, 1503-06 possible--to copy a fact. Source: Wikimedia Commons
  14. 14. THE REACTION: IGNORE BRIDGEMANBridgeman Art Library: “All images supplied by the BridgemanArt Library are copyrighted photographs. The Bridgeman Art Library eitherowns the copyright in the photograph or acts as the authorised agent of thecopyright holder.”2J. Paul Getty Museum: “grants permission to download collectionimages from our Web site for your own personal and non-commercial use,or for fair use as defined in the United States copyright laws.”3Metropolitan Museum of Art: “Many of these images areavailable to license for study, editorial, and commercial usage.”4
  15. 15. NO TEETHThese copyright claims onlyhold power as warnings.5If a “copyright infringer”were ever taken to court, it islikely the precedent ofBridgeman would beextended to the regionoverseen by that court. Source: Wikimedia Commons
  16. 16. EFFECT ON ARTISTS AND ART HISTORIANSThese warnings are enough to dissuade artists and stifleart historical discourse.Colin Cameron: “One cannot measure the deterrenteffect these copyright claims have on potential authorswho would use the uncopyrightable reproductions tocreate new works.”6Scholars are forced to carefully choose images that areabsolutely necessary to their arguments.
  17. 17. WHY ASSERT COPYRIGHT? Financial gain. Bridgeman’s only source of income is dealing in art reproduction licenses. For a small museum, change in income can be detrimental.Source: Wikimedia Commons
  18. 18. CONCLUSIONSCopyright was created to encourage innovation.Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp shows thatexact photographic copies of public domain works ofart cannot be copyrighted.Public domain works of art are considered facts thatcannot be bound by copyright.
  19. 19. REFERENCES[1] Bridgeman: The World’s leading Source of Fine Art, Cultural and Historical Images. Bridgeman ArtCulture History. <http://www.bridgemanart.com/about-bridgeman.aspx> Accessed March 19,2011.[2] Terms & Conditions US. 2009. Bridgeman Art Culture History. <http://www.bridgemanart.com/copyright.aspx?lang=en-gb>. Accessed March 19, 2011.[3] Terms of Use / Copyright. The Getty. <http://www.getty.edu/legal/image_request/index.html>.Accessed March 19, 2011.[4] Study and Research: Image Resources. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. <http://www.metmuseum.org/education/er_photo_lib.asp>. Accessed March 19, 2011.[5] Mitch Tuchman, “Inauthentic Works of Art: Why Bridgeman May Ultimately Be Irrelevant toArt Museums.” Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 24: 3 (2000-2001): 312.[6] Colin T. Cameron, “In Defense of Bridgeman: Claiming Copyright in PhotographicReproductions of Public Domain Works.” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 15: 3 (2006): 52.

×