On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Wouter Vanden hove wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>Obviously the nearly 400-year-old
>originals are going to be out of copyright, but the scans are from
>reproductions, which may have a valid copyright even if it's
>non-creative, depending on applicable law.
[...]
The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff, - versus -
Corel Corporation,
[...]
WHAT DID THE COURT DECIDE?
The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are
not protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking
in originality.
In their opinion, the Court noted: ''There is little doubt that many
photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the
modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.... But
'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and
effort, does not qualify.''
In other words, an exact reproduction of an image in the public domain
does not possess creativity itself. Therefore, the reproduction is not
protected under copyright law. "
Just to second that last month I asked our "copyright authority" about this
and the lawyer there told me basically the same: in Hungary (and I reckon in
the EU as well) if it is not creating a new creative work then it does not
change original copyright status. This means that digitalising content
(creating a CD of a PD encyclopedia, scanning its pictures, reprinting
originals, etc.) does not change copyright: if it was PD before it gonna be
PD as well.
Naturally every nation have the right - I guess - to make as stupid
contradictory laws as they please (and I trust englishmen on that :)) but it
is hardly valid outside their jurisdiction. But I even doubt this would be
the case.
But IANAL, and not a Briton either. ;)
[[user:grin]]
Hungary