On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)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