[WikiEN-l] Application of the {{pd-art}} tag

Mon Apr 10 18:43:23 UTC 2006

On 10/04/06, Mak <makwik at gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I am not a lawyer, but IIRC, Bridgeman v Corel only applies to
> two-dimensional copies of two-dimensional works (though it may apply
> to three-dimensional copies of three-dimensional works).  The basis of
> it is that a "slavishly accurate" copy of a work involves no creative
> effort, and so cannot establish a copyright separate from that of the
> original.  Photographing a 3D work involves creative effort, in the
> choice of lighting and camera angle.
> <snip>
>
> This has come up in an article I'm working on- does this ruling apply to
> images from books or manuscripts? Are books three dimensional art works,
> even if what you're reproducing is a single page from them? My father, a
> librarian, seems to think the owning library continues to hold copyright for
> all such images. I'm not so sure.

Photocopying a page of a book is a slavish copy... but you can make a
good case that photography of any book as an archival process, or with
the intent of producing high-quality images, is a sufficiently
difficult process that it passes the minimum-creativity standard.

I don't know what the caselaw is on it, but I would be wary of an
overbroad reliance on Bridgeman.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk