As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law countries have moved towards applying the "threshold of originality" standard and away from the "sweat of the brow" standard.[1] Canada, for example, now largely follows Feist. Even UK jurisprudence is gradually transitioning (and is currently inconsistent). (Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat based). The enactment of database rights throughout Europe has made this transition easier, as even without sweat of the brow, database IP is now protected (independent of copyright) throughout Europe.
Israel is both a common law and civil law country. I'm not aware of any court cases in Israel that have addressed this issue so far. It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out there. For the record, though, I would never trust a museum to give me a accurate assessment of the state of copyright law in a given country.
1. Gervais, Daniel J. (Summer 2002). "Feist Goes Global: A Comparative Analysis of the Notion of Originality in Copyright Law". /Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A./ *49*: 949--981.
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/26/11 3:39 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other countries.
It's not even binding on other districts within the US.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l