The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp. 36 F. Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) Bridgeman marketed reproductions of art owned by some museums. They sold digital images of the art on CD. The art was in the public domain and not protected by copyright. Corel started selling their own CDs of famous art, containing some of Bridgeman's digital images. Bridgeman sued for copyright infringement. Corel argued that the paintings in question were public domain, and Bridgeman couldn't get a copyright on an exact digital copy of a public domain painting. Bridgeman pointed to Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. (191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951)), which held that reproductions of public domain images can be awarded copyright protection. The Trial Court found for Corel. The Trial Court found that a photograph could be denied copyright for a lack of originality, if it amount to nothing more than "slavish copying." Bridgeman admitted that they were attempting to make the digital images as identical to the original paintings as possible. The Court found that there must be a distinguishable variation to render the reproduction original, and just producing a copy in a different medium did not constitute a distinguishable variation. If this case had gone the other way, someone could indefinitely extend their copyright by simply taking exact photos of their paintings over and over again.