It seems that Bridgeman is clear-cut, has even been extended to 3D reproductions, and it doesn't seem that the courts are interested in overturning it. Naturally, this means museums must ignore it and full-throatedly declare that of course they own the copyright to their faithful photographic reproductions of public domain artworks, a lie which will be repeated endlessly by people who think those who have a financial interest in the law being a certain way would know best. See also the ridiculously over-broad declarations made by the NFL of how much control they have over the use of the phrase "Super Bowl" to describe a specific football game: Absolute shameless lying is par for the course when it comes to people who think they ought to have a proprietary interest in something, especially if the law is not on their side.