I'd have been bloody miffed at the outcome of that case if I was Bridgeman!!!ghettosynth wrote:Corel .... blatantly stole the photograph from Brideman's digital image collection which Bridgeman licensed for a fee.
They then went on to include this photo in their own products. Bridgeman was the only entity licensed to make images of the paintings by the museums where the works were held. In other words, you can't just go take a picture of these paintings because, even though they are in the public domain, they are in museums which may not allow you to take such pictures. So Bridgeman was able to prove that the photo in Corel's library came from Bridgemans own commercial product.
This case does span both U.S. and U.K. law and U.K. law was used to determine whether or not the photos in question were subject to copyright protection and U.S. law was used to determine whether infringement had occurred. It was determined that the photos were not subject to copyright because they lacked sufficient originality.
I spend months negotiating with the museum to take photographs of their art collection. I have to explain how I will do them absolute justice and capture them perfectly and respectfully and how they will only be commercially exploited for, shall we say, books on the history of art (and not made into tacky posters, for example, or sold to tacky mags to mess with). No doubt solicitors are involved to draw up a water tight contract between the museum and I. There may even be a clause in the contract that my photographing the painting(s) won't affect them adversely and that I may be liable if it does. I sign. We come to a generous financial arrangement which I am happy to pay because A) I should eventually recoup those costs over time and B) my payment to the museum is going to a good cause, so to speak, and supports the place and its ability to continue showing these paintings for free to the public. A date is set to photograph the picture(s).
I hire in a specialist photographer for the occasion. Not only does he possess the required skills but he has the right equipment including specialist lighting that will illuminate the painting perfectly without affecting the painting(s) or causing any fading.
The date arrives. The museum closes that gallery for the day. The photographer arrives and sets up, no doubt the curator and other museum personnel are in attendance as well. The photographer takes several shots on his digital as tests and eventually, after some trial and error, they are approved so out comes the Hasselblad for the proper photographs.
The photographer takes those shots away and carefully develops the film using years of darkroom experience and creates the most stunning prints. Another appointment is made with the museum to approve them and sign them off. Assuming they are...
I then take out advertising in art circle journals to make it known that I have these fabulous photos for licensed use. So far, it's cost me a lot of money and taken a lot of time (not just mine but the museum's as well)...
And someone comes along and by way of indirection bundles them with their graphics package. I am bloody furious and I sue them ...
And some tosswit old fart of a judge rules against me saying there is "insufficient originality" implying - almost - that I did little other than photocopy the damned thing.
Sorry, I think the judge's decision was totally wrong in this case and creates a nasty precedent. For example, what's to stop someone using, say, VSL's strings in their own library and when they get clobbered by VSL, they cite the Bridgeman vs Corel case claiming there was "insufficient originality" in VSL's recordings/samples of string players just bowing their instruments on single notes!
Hmmmmm...!
Cheers,
Stephen
