On 4/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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.
I wouldn't go that far, personally. In fact, my reading of why it was never litigated at the appeals court level is that Bridgeman and others feared setting a better precedent thereby, and one not in their interest.
I believe fear of an adverse precedent is exactly why there have been few cases to cite post-Bridgeman, as well.
Within the sensible reading of the law as it stands, Bridgeman v. Corel reached the correct verdict; /however/, as we all know, the law is not sensible and courts frequently side with the vested interests in copyright cases.
I truly doubt anyone would try to use Wikipedia in a precedent-setting test case - we're a sympathetic defendent. Corel, as a commercial company making money from their alleged copyright infringement, was a better test case, and they lost.
However, we should certainly keep track of any image we use under the assumptions of Bridgeman v. Corel, so that if the law or precedent changes we can re-evaluate them.
Note that none of this applies if you scan or photograph the image yourself, or if it is licensed under a Wikipedia-compatible license by someone who did.
-Matt