Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 7592900, member: 110350"]I never practiced copyright law, but my quick reading of the Bridgeman case cited by [USER=82322]@Ed Snible[/USER] leads me to believe that only a strained reading of the court's opinion could cause anyone to conclude that photographs of ancient coins are, in general, "slavish copies" that don't qualify for copyright protection.  That's my reading even assuming that the copyright in the underlying "works of art" -- presumably belonging to the government that issued the coins, with the engravers producing the dies as works for hire -- expired a couple of thousand years ago. See this excerpt from the amended opinion in the case, Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 196-197 (S.D.N.Y. 1999): "[T]here is broad scope for copyright in photographs because "a very modest expression of personality will constitute sufficient originality." As the Nimmers have written, there "appear to be at least two situations in which a photograph should be denied copyright for lack of originality," one of which is directly relevant here: "where a photograph of a photograph or other printed matter is made that amounts to nothing more than slavish copying."[32] The authors thus conclude that a slavish photographic copy of a painting would lack originality . . . . There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection. "Elements of originality ... may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved." <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5068002142390131270&q=%22copyright%22+%22photograph%22+%22bridgeman%22+%22coin%22&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=3,33#p197" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5068002142390131270&q=%22copyright%22+%22photograph%22+%22bridgeman%22+%22coin%22&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=3,33#p197" rel="nofollow">197*197</a> But "slavish copying," although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify. As the Supreme Court indicated in Feist, "sweat of the brow" alone is not the "creative spark" which is the sine qua non of originality. It therefore is not entirely surprising that an attorney for the Museum of Modern Art, an entity with interests comparable to plaintiff's and its clients, not long ago presented a paper acknowledging that a photograph of a two-dimensional public domain work of art "might not have enough originality to be eligible for its own copyright." In this case, 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." I do not think that any collector would be wise to rely on this opinion, without more, as a license to use (and publish/widely disseminate, especially for profit) other people's photographs of ancient coins, without permission, to a degree that goes beyond fair use and constitutes wholesale appropriation. It seems very unlikely to me, without researching the specific issue, that most photos of ancient coins -- involving photographing both sides (at least) of a three-dimensional object -- would be deemed the kind of slavish copying, without any spark of originality, that the photos involved in Bridgeman admittedly constituted.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches