On 10/17/06, Roger Luethi collector@hellgate.ch wrote: [snip]
I don't think that is their official position, because the idea that works written hundreds of years ago are still under copyright is entirely and obviously without merit (not counting special cases like Crown copyright).
Those who have experienced the cost, time, and creativity which goes into the restoring and digitizing required for a high quality reproduction do not find this position shocking.
Nor is it weakly established. Bridgeman v. Corel was a surprising outcome considering established practices, and I expect future cases will substantially restrain the expansive application of that ruling.