Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-be - [Cc-be] Slavish copies: Bridgeman vs Corel

cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons - Belgium

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Wouter Vanden hove <wouter.vanden.hove AT pandora.be>
  • To: cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Cc-be] Slavish copies: Bridgeman vs Corel
  • Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:10:36 +0100

Hi,
I have a question on the case of Bridgeman vs Corel (1999).
Does something similar apply in Belgium or Holland?

The question is about the criterium of "originality" and "novelty"
when you take a picture of an old painting, not to add creativity of your own (composition, lightning, editing,...) , but to capture the painting mainly as it was painted by its painter. The kind of picture anyone would take the same way.

I'm talking only about paintings here , not about statues where
composition and lightning is more important.


In Bridgeman vs Corel
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm
The decision noted that "There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection...." However,

"Plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create "slavish copies" of public domain works of art. 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. Copyright is not available in these circumstances."

See also:
http://www.funnystrange.com/copyright/bridgeman.htm
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Copyright/Forum/msg/2907.shtml


The case is important for project like Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons.
American and British Wikipedians are allowed to upload "slavish" copies of old (meaning public domain) art, but can Belgians to do the same?



Wouter Vanden Hove
vrijchrift.org
nl.wikipedia.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page