Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[projectsjh]

QUOTE: Case reference:
 In the United States a Federal court decided in its 1999 case Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corporation that ORIGINAL-FAITHFUL PHOTOGRAPHIES OF PAINTINGS AS NOT COPYRIGHTABLE, since the originality is missing. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 18 February 1999). The software producer Corel Corp. had used slides of the Bridgeman Art Library for the picture collection of its own CD-ROM. END QUOTE.

The above sounds like museum slides are "fair game"? Seems doubtful. Also, how does this case apply to an individual who has some paintings, posters and art work, and would like to take  photographs of them himself to use on his website? 

The Bridgeman Art Library has a lot of contemporary art on its website, by no means primarily "old masters," centuries dead. Yet my understanding from other reading is that if I own a painting (one of a kind, or "serially painted," signed or unsigned) I can
not take my own photograph of it and use it on my website -- not until, to be safe, 125 years after the artistīs death, and maybe not even then.   

[artchain]

I think you're confusing different issues.  I'll try to clarify with examples.

CASE 1:  Assume Sue creates an original painting.

Then Joe takes a nice, artistically lit and composed photo that shows Sue's artwork. 

Joe cannot publish his photo because it infringes on Sue's copyright.  But Joe ALSO has a copyright, on that nice artistic photo he took.

If someone (Bill) wanted to use the photo on his website, he would need to get permission from both Sue and Joe.

CASE 2:  Again, assume Sue creates an original painting.

This time Joe stands directly on front of Sue's painting.  There is no special lighting, nor artistic composition.  Joe just takes a straight, head-on photo.

In this case Joe's photo is not a creative work.  It is not protected by copyright.

Joe still cannot publish his photo because it infringes on Sue's copyright.

But in this case, if Bill gets his hands on the photo and uses it on his website, he needs only Sue's permission.  Joe has no copyright.

SUMMARY:  The photo itself may or may not be protected by copyright, depending on the degree of creativity.  But in any case, it does not change the copyright (or lack of rights) of the original work of art.