The Bridgeman Art Library v.Corel Corporation
From Library Copyright
The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (36 F. Supp. 2d 191)
Contents |
Facts
A United-Kingdom (UK) based company was marketing color transparencies and CD-ROMs of paintings that were in the public domain. The plaintiff sued the company for copyright infringement. In response to the plaintiff’s suit, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit claiming that according to the copyright law of the UK, no infringement existed because the works were not copyrightable. The UK law says that non-original works are impermissible subjects of valid copyright and therefore the works were not infringed. The Court granted the motion and noted that it would have reached the same conclusion under U.S. law. Following the decision, the plaintiff moved for reargument and reconsideration. The court granted the motion.
Questions Presented
Was UK copyright law the proper authority to apply and if so, pursuant to UK copyright law, were the works in fact copyrightable and consequently did the copying of them onto color transparencies and CD-ROMs constitute infringement?
Discussion
The first component that the court discusses is that of which law to apply in re-deciding the issue at bar. The court begins this discussion by explaining how in order to be protected under the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the work must be “an original work of authorship.” The court also explains how the US may constitutionally obligate itself to the copyright law of a foreign policy by signing an international treaty. This raises a host of concerns since the U.S. is a signatory to the International Berne Convention. For example, a French copyright holder suing for infringement in the US would be entitled to the same remedies as U.S. copyright holders. The difficulty lies where one nation’s law is looser or stricter than the other so that the degree of copyright protection is internationally inconsistent unless one signatory extends more or less protection to the holder in order to conform with the law of the nation where the enforcement is being sought.
The court does not however, come down on the issue and instead discusses copyright law as it universally requires originality. The next phase of the decision is devoted to originality as it relates to photography. The court quotes a distinguished British judge as explaining the three ways photography can meet the originality threshold necessary for copyright. They are: “[(1)] originality which resides in such specialties as angle of shot, light and shade, exposure, effects achieved by means of filters, developing techniques etc….[(2)] creation of the scene or subject to be photographed [,such as a photomontage or arrangement of a group]…[3] capturing and recording a scene unlikely to recur, e.g. a battle between an elephant and a tiger…” In contrast the works that are in question do not meet any of the above criteria. Rather, they are mere reproductions to the best ability that technology permits.
The plaintiff attempts to get around this by arguing that they have changed the medium of the image and therefore added originality which is copyrightable. The court rejects this argument, however, under both British and U.S. law. The court cites to its earlier opinion stating, “[I]t is uncontested that Bridgeman’s images are substantially exact reproductions of public domain works, albeit in a different medium.” The Court then goes on to conclude that this does not amount to variation that is copyrightable.
Holding
On re-hearing the case, the court affirms its original judgment. After an in depth consideration of the questions posed from the Berne Convention, the court applies UK copyright law but also considers why the works would cease to be protected under US copyright law. Specifically, the court discusses the notion of “originality” as being fundamental to achieve copyright protection under either law. The court concludes that the works in question lack this pre-requisite and therefore cannot be insulated from duplications of this nature.
Modified. Original Source: Juliet Spiesman - Creative Commons Deed - In Carrie Russell's Complete Copyright: An Everyday Guide for Librarians
