On 10/04/06, Mak makwik@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@dunelm.org.uk