Disclaimers for PatchDr.com
All works on PatchDr.com and its sub domains, are believed to be in the public domain or we have resell rights. As such no claims can made as to copyright against any image or document in the compilation per:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. Law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality.The case itself was the result of Bridgeman Art Library questioning the right of Corel Corporation to reproduce high-quality photographic slides that the Library had made from original paintings which were in the public domain.The library emphasized the effort that went into the production of their slides, which may have hurt their case—the effort expended was to make sure the slides reproduced the originals as exactly as possible (something of value to art scholars and historians) and thus were purposely devoid of originality. The library also emphasized that under English and Welsh law, such reproductions seemed to be protected by copyright; the Court rejected that this applied to cases under U.S. Jurisdiction and raised doubts whether the UK attitude towards these reproductions was as legally decisive as was claimed: “While the Court’s conclusion as to the law governing copyrightability renders the point moot, the Court is persuaded that plaintiff’s copyright claim would fail even if the governing law were that of the United Kingdom.” The court ruled in favor of Corel. The case has caused great concern among various museums, which rely on income received from licensing photographic reproductions of objects and works in their collections. Some speculate the case would likely not apply to photographs of three-dimensional objects, as the photographic arrangement would plausibly require some creativity. This line of reasoning has been followed in other cases, such as Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp (2000), where it was ruled that there is “very broad scope for copyright in photographs, encompassing almost any photograph that reflects more than ‘slavish copying’.” The case has enabled broad public use and reuse of older artwork in a large variety of contexts. Wikipedia includes a large number of digital copies of older two-dimensional paintings, including high-resolution images, and identifies them as public domain works based on this ruling. Several federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman, though it has yet to be endorsed specifically by the Supreme Court. Moreover, this case has not been cited by any appellate-level circuit court meaning that it has no mandatory legal authority and its persuasive legal authority, as a district court opinion, has not been confirmed. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Feist v. Rural, explicitly rejecting difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability, seems to support the fundamental reasoning behind Bridgeman. Public Domain books and materials also fall under these rulings. Any reproduction in whole are in part may be used by anyone in any other form. Simply scanning and or re-typing does not confer a new copyright as the fundamental material is still the same as original. Simple Page layout, fonts, etc. Do not qualify as a “new” document eligible for copyright status. Only new original material is eligible for copyright status. Please also understand copyright status for U.S. Government Publications or those Publications funded by the U.S.Government. Per the copyright office all U.S. Government Publications, etc are automatically public domain and no copyright claims can be made on these materials. Again, simply scanning or putting your name on a scanned document does not grant a new copyright on these materials. There must be substantial new material added to the public domain material (i.e.: editorial comments, etc) and these must be noted as new material. Any image or document inadvertently included here that is not copyright free, which unlikely, would fall under fair use as they do not encompass the majority of the material here and are freely available on the Internet with no copyright restrictions. If you believe that you are the copyright holder to any material in this compilation you must notify us immediately with proof of copyright status and we will remove material from the compilation. User agrees that all material is for educational, noncommercial, personal use only. You may not, however, distribute, modify, transmit, reuse, re-post, or use the contents for public or commercial purposes, including the text, images, audio, and video. User further agrees that this website may not be liable for any special or consequential damages that result from the use of, or the inability to use, the materials contained herein or the performance of the products, even if seller has been advised of the possibility of such damages. As these materials are freely available user is fully responsible for their use and agrees to hold seller harmless in any action resulting from users use of any image in this compilation. User agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless seller, its officers, directors, employees, agents, licensors and suppliers (collectively the “Service Providers”) from and against all losses, expenses, damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, resulting from any violation of these terms and conditions or any activity related to user (including negligent or wrongful conduct) by you or any other person accessing the contents. Seller is a distributor of these products and does not knowingly sell unauthorized copyrighted material.