Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was a pivotal copyright infringement lawsuit that established a significant precedent regarding the protectability of exact photographic reproductions of public domain works of art. The case pitted The Bridgeman Art Library, a licensor of fine art transparencies, against the Corel Corporation, a software company that had used images of famous paintings in its products. The central legal question was whether a photograph that slavishly copies a two-dimensional work in the public domain can itself possess sufficient originality to qualify for copyright protection under United States copyright law.

Background and parties

The plaintiff, The Bridgeman Art Library, was a company based in the United Kingdom that created and licensed high-quality photographic transparencies of famous artworks held in museums and collections worldwide, such as the National Gallery, London and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The defendant, Corel Corporation, was a Canadian software developer known for products like CorelDRAW. Corel had included digital images of classic paintings, including works by Leonardo da Vinci and Vincent van Gogh, in its software packages and on CD-ROMs. Bridgeman alleged that Corel had copied its specific photographic reproductions of these public domain artworks, which Bridgeman claimed were protected by its own copyrights. The legal dispute highlighted a transatlantic conflict, as Bridgeman's position was supported by copyright precedent in the United Kingdom, particularly under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Legal arguments

Bridgeman's core argument was that its photographs, which required skilled labor, lighting, and angle selection to accurately reproduce paintings, possessed the requisite originality for copyright protection. The company contended that under the Berne Convention and principles of international comity, U.S. courts should respect the copyrights granted in the United Kingdom. Corel, in response, argued that these photographs were "slavish copies" that lacked any minimal degree of creativity, as they aimed solely to replicate the underlying public domain works with absolute fidelity. Corel's defense relied on the foundational U.S. copyright principle established in cases like Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. that copyright protects only original works of authorship, not mere labor or investment ("sweat of the brow").

Court rulings

The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. In a summary judgment ruling, the court sided decisively with Corel. Judge Kaplan held that under U.S. law, as articulated in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., a photograph of a two-dimensional public domain work could only be copyrightable if it added some original expression, such as through unique lighting, angle, or arrangement. The court found that Bridgeman's photographs, which sought to be exact replicas, demonstrated no such creativity. The court explicitly rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine and declined to extend comity to the U.K. copyrights, stating that to do so would conflict with the fundamental U.S. policy of not protecting factual or non-original reproductions.

Impact on copyright law

The ruling in *Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.* had a profound impact, clarifying that exact photographic reproductions of public domain artworks are not subject to independent copyright in the United States. This reinforced the primacy of the originality requirement over investment or labor. The decision empowered projects like Wikimedia Commons and other digital archives to freely host and distribute faithful images of public domain paintings, sculptures, and manuscripts without fear of infringement claims from photographic licensors. It created a clear distinction between a copyrightable photograph of a three-dimensional object or scene, which involves creative choices, and a non-copyrightable reproduction of a flat work, which does not.

Subsequent developments

The precedent set by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has been widely followed and cited. In 2018, a similar issue arose in a case involving the Wikimedia Foundation and the National Portrait Gallery, London, further cementing the principle. While the ruling remains settled law in the U.S., a divergence persists with jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and the European Union, where a lower threshold of "author's own intellectual creation" or "skill and labor" can sometimes protect such reproductions under directives like the Copyright Term Directive. This transatlantic discrepancy continues to influence international licensing practices and the policies of institutions like the Rijksmuseum and the Art Institute of Chicago regarding digital access to their collections.

Category:United States copyright case law Category:1999 in United States case law Category:Art and the law