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
countries have moved
towards applying the "threshold of originality" standard and away from
the "sweat of the brow" standard. 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.
On 9/26/11 3:39 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray
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?
case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other countries.
even binding on other districts within the US.
foundation-l mailing list