## Facts

- Bridgeman licensed color transparencies and digital images made as exact photographic reproductions of public-domain paintings by European masters.
- Bridgeman claimed copyright in its photographs, not in the underlying artworks, which were in the public domain.
- Corel marketed CD-ROM products containing digitized images of similar public-domain paintings in multiple countries.
- Bridgeman alleged Corel’s CD-ROM images were unauthorized copies derived from Bridgeman’s transparencies, asserting Bridgeman was the only authorized source for certain images.
- After the court entered judgment for Corel on summary judgment, Bridgeman moved for reargument and reconsideration, arguing errors regarding originality, the effect of a U.S. registration certificate, and the court’s understanding and use of U.K. law.

## Issues

1. Whether exact photographic reproductions of public-domain paintings possess sufficient originality to be copyrightable under U.S. law.
2. Whether such reproductions are copyrightable under U.K. law as asserted by the plaintiff.
3. Whether a U.S. Copyright Office registration certificate compels a finding of copyrightability.
4. Whether any copying by Corel could constitute infringement where similarity derives only from public-domain subject matter.

## Decision

- The court denied Bridgeman’s motion for reargument and reconsideration and left final judgment for Corel in place.
- The court reaffirmed that Bridgeman’s transparencies were not copyrightable because they lacked originality.
- The court held that a registration certificate supplies only a rebuttable presumption of validity and did not overcome the absence of originality shown by the record.
- The court concluded that, without a valid copyright in the reproductions, Corel’s use could not constitute infringement.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protection requires originality; technical skill, effort, or expense alone does not satisfy the originality requirement.
- A faithful, “slavish” photographic copy intended to avoid distinguishable variation from a public-domain artwork lacks the creative authorship necessary for protection.
- A mere change of medium (painting to photograph), without a creative contribution reflected in the resulting image, does not create protectable expression.
- A copyright registration certificate is prima facie evidence of validity but is rebuttable and does not control where the work is demonstrably non-original.
- Similarity attributable solely to uncopyrightable public-domain content cannot support infringement.

## Conclusion

The court reaffirmed that exact photographic reproductions of public-domain paintings were not original works of authorship under the applicable originality standard, that registration did not cure that defect, and that judgment for Corel therefore remained proper.


Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)