Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

Corel Corporation

Industry	Software / Digital media
Headquarters	United States
Products	"Professional Photos CD Rom masters" (CD-ROM with digitized European master paintings)

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (36 F. Supp. 2d 191, S.D.N.Y. 1999) was a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which determined that exact photographic reproductions of public domain artworks do not qualify for copyright protection in the United States, due to the absence of sufficient originality. Although creating precise copies can demand considerable expertise and effort, US copyright statutes prioritize originality as the fundamental requirement for protection.

Facts

Corel Corporation distributed a CD-ROM named "Professional Photos CD Rom masters" across the UK, US, and Canada markets, featuring digitized versions of European master paintings. Corel asserted that these images were obtained from "Off the Wall Images," a company that had since ceased operations.

The Bridgeman Art Library possessed a vast archive of photographs depicting European masterworks, available both as transparencies and digital formats. Despite the original paintings being in the public domain, Bridgeman claimed copyright over its photographic reproductions and licensed them commercially.

Action

Bridgeman initiated legal action against Corel, arguing that since no authorized photographs of these public domain works existed other than those Bridgeman was licensed to produce, Corel’s digital images must be unauthorized copies of Bridgeman’s photographs. The plaintiff asserted copyright infringement, and both parties sought summary judgment from the court.

Judgment

Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District Court of New York issued two rulings in this matter.

First judgment

On November 13, 1998, Kaplan granted summary dismissal in favor of the defendant. The court applied UK law to determine whether the plaintiff’s photographs were eligible for copyright protection and used US law to assess infringement claims. It concluded that Bridgeman’s photographs lacked the necessary originality under UK standards and therefore were not copyrightable. Moreover, even assuming they were protected, no infringement occurred under US law because both Bridgeman’s and Corel’s images were exact reproductions of public domain artworks—elements not subject to copyright—thus negating any claim of infringement.

Kaplan further observed that applying US law alone would have led to an identical outcome.

Plaintiff motions

Subsequent to the summary judgment, on November 23, the plaintiff filed motions requesting reconsideration and re-argument, contesting the court’s evaluation of copyrightability. Bridgeman pointed to a US copyright registration for its photograph of the Laughing Cavalier as proof of valid protection and argued that UK law was misapplied by failing to follow precedent set by Graves' Case.

Additionally, the court received an unsolicited letter from William F. Patry, who challenged the decision to apply UK law. Bridgeman also sought permission to submit an amicus curiae brief from The Wallace Collection addressing the UK law issue.

These motions were accepted; the amicus brief was submitted, both parties responded to Patry’s arguments, and the case was re-argued.

Judge Kaplan later commented on the plaintiff’s delayed focus on critical legal points:

Second ruling

On February 26, 1999, Kaplan issued a second summary judgment, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the case without trial.

In this decision, Kaplan analyzed Patry’s claims in the context of the US Constitution’s Copyright Clause, alongside international agreements such as the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention, as well as the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (BCIA). His focus centered on BCIA sections 3(a) and 4(a), which amend Title 17, Chapter 1, § 101 of the United States Code.

The court determined that Congress did not empower foreign law to govern copyright eligibility in American courts. Notably, BCIA section 4(a) bars asserting copyright "by virtue of" the Berne Convention. Since applying UK law would depend on the Berne Convention, it was rejected; instead, US law was applied to evaluate the copyright status of Bridgeman’s photographs.

Contrary to the first judgment, Kaplan relied on US law rather than UK law. He affirmed that photographs are considered "writings" under the Copyright Clause and cited Melville Nimmer’s Nimmer on Copyright, which identifies instances where photographs lack originality—especially when they are slavish copies of existing works. Such slavish reproductions are devoid of originality and thus not eligible for copyright protection under US statutes.

While many photographs surpass the minimal originality standard for copyright—through creative elements like composition, lighting, and perspective—Kaplan concluded that Bridgeman’s images were admitted slavish copies made to achieve perfect fidelity. These images were essentially precise reproductions of public domain artworks rendered in a different medium.

Although grounded in US law, Kaplan observed that even under UK legal principles the plaintiff’s claim would not succeed. He cited the Privy Council decision in Interlego v Tyco Industries, which held that mere skill or labor in copying does not establish originality. The court emphasized that some material modification or creative input is necessary to render a work original; simply changing the medium is insufficient. Consequently, both US and UK laws reject copyright for slavish copies regardless of whether they are paintings reproduced as photographs or digitized images.

Subsequent case law

As a ruling from a federal district court, Bridgeman does not serve as binding precedent for other federal or state courts but has gained substantial influence as persuasive authority and is frequently cited by federal courts.

Numerous courts have embraced the reasoning set forth in Bridgeman. For example, in Meshwerks v. Toyota, 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008), the Tenth Circuit referenced Bridgeman v. Corel when extending its principles to three-dimensional wireframe models replicating existing objects. The court underscored that no copyright exists in reproductions that merely "accurately convey the underlying image." It specifically noted Bridgeman Art Library, which held that exact photographic copies of public domain works lack originality sufficient for copyright protection.

The Meshwerks ruling also overturned the earlier decision in Alva Studios, Inc. v. Winninger (1959), which had granted copyright over a reproduction sculpture, signaling a judicial shift away from protecting slavish copies. This outcome aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991), which rejected effort or expense as criteria for copyright eligibility. Similar reasoning appears in cases such as Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp, where copyright protection was recognized only when photographic works demonstrate more than mere slavish replication.

The Bridgeman decision has sparked concern among museums that generate revenue by licensing photographic reproductions of their collections; some argue its precedential impact is limited or confined to New York.

Critics point to Schiffer Publishing v. Chronicle Books as a conflicting case; however, its circumstances differ markedly. In Schiffer, photographs did not perfectly replicate originals but included noticeable alterations in tone and color, thereby introducing originality absent in Bridgeman. Judge Berle M. Schiller extensively cited Bridgeman, concluding that Schiffer actually supports it by affirming that only reproductions exhibiting an "interpretive dimension or spark of originality" are entitled to copyright.

Implications for UK law

Main article: Photography and the law § United Kingdom

Being a US decision, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. lacks binding authority within UK courts. Nevertheless, it aligns with dicta from Interlego and references Justice Laddie’s opinions, casting doubt on whether photographs that exactly duplicate artworks meet originality requirements under UK law. Reconciling this with decisions like Walter v Lane, which equate journalistic skill in verbatim reporting with photographic skill in exact replication, remains challenging. Furthermore, Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co. established that slavish reproductions—such as re-photographing prints or negatives—do not qualify as original works. Lord Oliver in Interlego similarly ruled that mere copying effort does not create originality.

Due to its significance, the UK Museums Copyright Group commissioned barrister Jonathan Rayner James, Q.C., co-author of Copinger and Skone James on copyright, to provide an expert opinion. He affirmed that photographs depicting artistic works can be eligible for copyright under English law regardless of whether the subject is three-dimensional (e.g., sculpture) or two-dimensional (e.g., painting).

Stokes (2001) argued that UK jurisprudence acknowledges originality in photography involving lighting choices and techniques that yield enhanced representations exceeding mere slavish copying.

The second judgment in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. underscores that older precedents like Graves' Case (1867) no longer reflect contemporary UK standards on originality, having been superseded by rulings such as Interlego.

In 2006, Bridgeman Art Library sought a comparable test case within the UK or Europe to fortify its legal stance.

In November 2015, the UK Intellectual Property Office released guidance titled "Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet," updated January 2021. It clarifies that copyright subsists only in original intellectual creations and suggests retouched digital reproductions of older works rarely meet originality criteria due to limited creative input.

In November 2017, a group of 27 art historians and curators—including Bendor Grosvenor, Waldemar Januszczak, Martin Kemp, and Malcolm Rogers—called on The Times to advocate ending fees imposed by UK national museums for reproducing historic images. They argued these charges lack legal foundation and obstruct public access to knowledge while disputing museums’ claims of new copyrights on faithful reproductions. They recommended following international examples such as the Rijksmuseum by offering open access to publicly owned out-of-copyright artworks.

A November 2023 Court of Appeal ruling (THJ v. Sheridan) clarified that no new copyright arises from photographic reproductions of two-dimensional public domain artworks under UK law—a principle effective since 2009.

See also

• Copyright protection of photographs in Switzerland – related landmark cases
• Fair use
• National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute
• Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. – case involving application of foreign law in US copyright ownership disputes

Further reading

• Allan, Robin J. (2006). "After Bridgeman: Copyright, Museums, and Public Domain Works of Art." University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155(4), 961–989.
• Landes, William M. (2000). "Copyright, Borrowed Images and Appropriation Art: An Economic Approach." U Chicago Law & Economics Olin Working Paper No. 113.
• Cameron, Colin T. (Fall 2006). "In Defiance of Bridgeman: Claiming Copyright in Photographic Reproductions of Public Domain Works." Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 15(1), 31.
• Petri, Grischka (2014). "The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art." Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies, 12(1).
• Saranow Schultz, Jennifer (2010). "When It's Illegal to Photograph Artwork." The New York Times.
• Starr, Bernard (2012). "Must You Pay to Use Photos of Public Domain Artworks? No, Says a Legal Expert." Huffington Post.

External links

• Complete text of the court's decision (archived)
• Analysis
  • Overview of the case (in favor of the ruling)
  • Museums Copyright Group’s perspective (critical of the ruling)
• Van Dale/Romme-arrest Similar ruling from the Netherlands
• Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp