Mark Wagner wrote:
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.
Bridgeman v. Corel was a district court case, never litigated at the appeals court level, and therefore is not a strong precedent. It is, as far as I have been able to determine, a fairly unusual result not likely to be followed by other courts.
Therefore, relying on Bridgeman v. Corel for anything is likely wishful thinking.
Images created and published in the US that are public domain under Bridgeman v Corel are probably public domain everywhere else, as well.
I very much doubt this.
--Jimbo