Katherine L. Kelley presentation for "New Voices in the Profession" session at the VRA + ARLIS/NA 2nd Joint Conference in Minneapolis, MN.

1. THE COMPLICATIONS OF
BRIDGEMAN AND
COPYRIGHT (MIS)USE
Katherine L. Kelley
University of Wisconsin-Madison
School of Library and Information Studies

2. SUMMARY
Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp showed that
reproductive photography is not copyrightable.
Considered in the decision are two precedent-setting
court cases that show:
Photography often is copyrightable.
Facts often are not copyrightable.
Art museums and libraries are ignoring the decision
and hinder artists and art historians.

3. BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY
Leading source of high quality reproductive images
of fine art
Offices in London, Paris, New York, and Berlin
Archives contain images from over 8,000 collections
and more than 29,000 artists.1
Licensor of art images used in publications

4. COREL CORPORATION
Canadian software company
Originally created graphic design software
Now creates software in the digital media industry

5. BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD.
V. COREL CORP.
The Conflict:
Corel sold a CD-ROM set of 700
digital reproductive images.
Bridgeman also owned and
claimed copyright over 120 of Source: Wikimedia Commons
the images.
In 1998, the Bridgeman Art
Library sued Corel for copyright
infringement.

6. BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD.
V. COREL CORP.
The Decision:
Bridgeman did not have copyright over the
reproductions.
Judge Kaplan: “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.”

7. BURROW-GILES LITHOGRAPHIC
CO V. SARONY (1884)
Napoleon Sarony sued Burrow-
Giles Lithographic Co. for
selling unauthorized copies of
his original photograph.
Burrow-Giles argued: a
photograph is not a writing nor
“the production of an author”
Decided that Sarony did have
copyright over the photograph
Oscar Wilde, No. 18, Napoleon Sarony, 1882
Source: Wikimedia Commons

8. FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. V. RURAL
TELEPHONE SERVICE CO (1991)
Rural sued Feist for publishing a telephone book
using unlicensed information from Rural.
Decided that compilations of facts, without a
“creative spark” are not copyrightable.
Further, copyright is not
granted to hard work alone.
Feist won the case.
Source: Wikimedia Commons

9. APPLYING BURROW-GILES
AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMAN
Burrow-Giles: Bridgeman: Feist:
Photographs Can a photograph Facts
can be of a fact be cannot be
copyrighted. copyrighted? copyrighted.

10. APPLYING BURROW-GILES
AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMAN
Burrow-Giles: Are all photographs copyrightable?

11. APPLYING BURROW-GILES
AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMAN
Burrow-Giles: Are all photographs copyrightable?
Most are.
Reproductive
photography is
most likely the
only case in which
photography is
not copyrightable.
Katherine near Look Mickey, Patricia Kelley, 2007

12. APPLYING BURROW-GILES
AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMAN
Feist: Is a “creative spark” inherent in the production
of any photograph or is a reproductive photograph
only a slavish copy of a “fact” (the original artwork)?

13. APPLYING BURROW-GILES
AND FEIST TO BRIDGEMAN
Feist: Is a “creative spark” inherent in the production
of any photograph or is a reproductive photograph
only a slavish copy of a “fact” (the original artwork)?
Photographers must make
choices such as lighting and
lenses.
Reproductive photography is
intended to make an image
as true to the original as
Mona Lisa, Leonardo Da Vinci, 1503-06 possible--to copy a fact.
Source: Wikimedia Commons

14. THE REACTION:
IGNORE BRIDGEMAN
Bridgeman Art Library: “All images supplied by the Bridgeman
Art Library are copyrighted photographs. The Bridgeman Art Library either
owns the copyright in the photograph or acts as the authorised agent of the
copyright holder.”2
J. Paul Getty Museum: “grants permission to download collection
images from our Web site for your own personal and non-commercial use,
or for fair use as defined in the United States copyright laws.”3
Metropolitan Museum of Art: “Many of these images are
available to license for study, editorial, and commercial usage.”4

15. NO TEETH
These copyright claims only
hold power as warnings.5
If a “copyright infringer”
were ever taken to court, it is
likely the precedent of
Bridgeman would be
extended to the region
overseen by that court.
Source: Wikimedia Commons

16. EFFECT ON ARTISTS AND
ART HISTORIANS
These warnings are enough to dissuade artists and stifle
art historical discourse.
Colin Cameron: “One cannot measure the deterrent
effect these copyright claims have on potential authors
who would use the uncopyrightable reproductions to
create new works.”6
Scholars are forced to carefully choose images that are
absolutely necessary to their arguments.

17. WHY ASSERT
COPYRIGHT?
Financial gain.
Bridgeman’s only source of
income is dealing in art
reproduction licenses.
For a small museum, change in
income can be detrimental.
Source: Wikimedia Commons

18. CONCLUSIONS
Copyright was created to encourage innovation.
Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp shows that
exact photographic copies of public domain works of
art cannot be copyrighted.
Public domain works of art are considered facts that
cannot be bound by copyright.

19. REFERENCES
[1] Bridgeman: The World’s leading Source of Fine Art, Cultural and Historical Images. Bridgeman Art
Culture History. <http://www.bridgemanart.com/about-bridgeman.aspx> Accessed March 19,
2011.
[2] Terms & Conditions US. 2009. Bridgeman Art Culture History. <http://
www.bridgemanart.com/copyright.aspx?lang=en-gb>. Accessed March 19, 2011.
[3] Terms of Use / Copyright. The Getty. <http://www.getty.edu/legal/image_request/index.html>.
Accessed March 19, 2011.
[4] Study and Research: Image Resources. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. <http://
www.metmuseum.org/education/er_photo_lib.asp>. Accessed March 19, 2011.
[5] Mitch Tuchman, “Inauthentic Works of Art: Why Bridgeman May Ultimately Be Irrelevant to
Art Museums.” Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 24: 3 (2000-2001): 312.
[6] Colin T. Cameron, “In Defense of Bridgeman: Claiming Copyright in Photographic
Reproductions of Public Domain Works.” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 15: 3 (2006): 52.