Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 7594769, member: 110350&quot;]Thanks for the link. The author of that article notes that he is not a lawyer himself. I suspect that he doesn&#039;t realize how easily distinguished<i> Bridgeman</i> is, and how weak a precedent it would be (in any jurisdiction) outside the specific context underlying the decision, or one resembling it more closely than ancient coin photographs do.&nbsp; I don&#039;t agree that 99% of ancient coin photographs are simply &quot;slavish copies&quot; without <u>any</u> creativity or originality whatsoever. The best evidence of that, perhaps, is how much difference there is among different photos of the same coin. However, it&#039;s been more than 20 years since <i>Bridgeman</i>, and I haven&#039;t followed up to see how, if at all, it&#039;s been applied in contexts more closely resembling ours. Nor do I intend to do so!</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, I agree with you that regardless of whether ancient coin photographs are subject to copyright, the damages from the kind of &quot;infringement&quot; that most people engage in are generally zero, and the use most people engage in is fair use -- and not infringement -- to begin with.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in