<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.
Makemi