Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. 191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951) Bell was making 'mezzotint' copies of public domain paintings by old masters. Basically, to make a mezzotint, an artist traces a photograph of a famous work of art and engraved the tracing onto a printing plate to make reproductions that could be easily reprinted in books. Catalda began reprinting some of Bell's mezzotints. Bell sued for copyright infringement. Catalda argued that Bell couldn't copyright the mezzotints because they were merely faithful reproductions of other work. Therefore they were not an original work of authorship. 17 U.S.C. §102(a) requires that a work be original. For example, if the Mona Lisa is in the public domain, how could you get a copyright on a copy of the Mona Lisa? The Trial Court found for Bell. Catalda appealed. The Trial Court found that every engraver would engrave the mezzotint slightly differently, and those subtle differences were enough to meet the originality requirement. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Appellate Court found that the term original should be read to mean "owes its origin" to a particular author, and not that the work was "startling, novel or unusual, or a marked departure from the past." The Court noted that maps are copyrightable, and ideally all maps should be exactly the same (to be accurate). The Court noted that while you can't copyright a work in the public domain, you can copyright a translation of a work in the public domain, and the mezzotints were similar to a translation. They were an artistic interpretation of a public domain work. But, see The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp. (36 F. Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), which held that in order to qualify, a work must be a distinguishable variation from the original. You can't make an exact copy that is indistinguishable from the original.