On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
It is settled case law in the US that restorations are not copyrightable as they lack sufficient originality. The intent is to create a slavish copy of the original work. Even if it takes a great deal of skill and judgment to do that, there are insufficient grounds for copyright in the US system.
This may not be the case in other jurisdictions (such as the UK) which place a greater emphasis on effort in determining eligibility for copyright.
-Robert Rohde
What case(s) settled this issue? I haven't been able to find anything credible one way or the other, but a number of organizations without an obvious financial interest in the issue seem to assume that restorations do create new copyrights.
-Sage