tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3980072458738787488..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: ‘Display At Your Own Risk’: A Tour into ‘Copyright Surrogacy’ Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77015891363871473202017-06-13T04:22:00.850+01:002017-06-13T04:22:00.850+01:00Bridgeman is effectively settled law in the US. Th...Bridgeman is effectively settled law in the US. The Bridgeman decision was cited at the appellate level in Meshwerks v. Toyota, which extended it to 3D scans of 3D objects. Both decisions rely on Feist v. Rural Telephone, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that copyright requires originality. <br /><br />As a practical matter, Wikipedia relies strongly on Bridgeman for their images of public-domain artworks. Nobody has successfully sued the Wikimedia Foundation over this. The UK's National Portrait Gallery threatened to sue the Wikimedia Foundation in 2009, but backed down.John Naglenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65299831441998805062017-05-30T17:48:03.677+01:002017-05-30T17:48:03.677+01:00anonymous @09.58.
While Bridgeman may be relativ...anonymous @09.58. <br /><br />While <i>Bridgeman</i> may be relatively settled law in the USA (however it is only the decision of a single Federal District), that has little bearing on the jurisprudence of the UK or EU. Against <i>Bridgeman</i> one needs to consider the 2001 UK case of <i>Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co</i> in which Neuberger J (as he then was) found that copyright existed in photographs of various antiques and works of art produced for a catalogue, even though, arguably, these photographs paid far less attention to the accurate reproduction of the artworks than was the case in <i>Bridgeman</i>. While this decision came some considerable time before <i>Infopaq</i> and the more recent approach to what constitutes originality, it does indicate that in the UK at least the matter is not yet settled law. The IPO Copyright Notice clearly represents a common-sense point of view but has no more legal weight than does the <a href="http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/resources/articles/bridgeman/" rel="nofollow">Opinion</a> of Jonathan Rayner James QC provided to the Museums Copyright Group, which took a contrary view. For what it is worth, I support the IPO's stance, as I wrote on the <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/art-for-arts-ake.html" rel="nofollow">1709 Blog</a> a couple of years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-21893971189248522592017-05-30T09:58:41.282+01:002017-05-30T09:58:41.282+01:00I think this issue was disposed of by Kaplan J in ...I think this issue was disposed of by Kaplan J in Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd v. Corel Corp, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). It is not surprising that the museums have not chosen to litigate the issue - they would lose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com