[WikiEN-l] Used-with-permission images, a modest proposal

Tue Jul 5 23:00:03 UTC 2005

> I'm not aware of how it works around the world, but in the US we are
> very generous with extending copyright to photographs and in general
> to many non-artistic works which simply required a lot of effort to
> produce.
...
> then there is no rational reason that copyright can not equally be
> extended to an archival grade photograph.
>
> As far as I can tell this position is strongly supported by caselaw in
> the US ...

Not quite. Pasting from Wikipedia:

- - -

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F.Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) was
a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain
images could not be covered by copyright because they lack originality.
Even if accurate reproductions may require a great deal of skill,
experience and effort, it is a process that lacks originality, which is a
key element for copyrightability under U.S. law. The decision applies only
to two-dimensional images such as paintings.

Many federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman, though it has
yet to be specifically endorsed by the Supreme Court. However, the Court's
ruling in Feist v. Rural, in which it explicitly rejected difficulty of
labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability, seems to have
supported the central reasoning behind Bridgeman.

- - -

> and I think that it would be a fair position on Wikipedia to
> make an effort to preferentially make use of made-by-wikipedian and
> truly PD photographs of PD artwork when such alternatives are
> available.

When possible, sure. But there are a great many
occasions where we can only maintain a photograph
under a Bridgeman type argument.

Regards,
Haukur