[Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

[Jim Redmond]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:22, <wiki-lists at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Where some seem to think that
> just because the work is PD there is a right to all encodings of that
> work.
>

To use an extreme hypothetical example: The novel "Pride and Prejudice" is
in the public domain.  It will take me a long time to retype the entire
thing into a text file.  If my copy is verbatim - that is, if I have
faithfully transcribed the original manuscript - then has the sweat of my
brow earned me the right to claim copyright on my text file?

Under US case law, the answer is pretty clearly "no".  Jane Austen did the
actual writing, and I was just making a copy (albeit in a different
format).  Copyright only applies to new creative works, and here I have not
done anything creative, so no new copyright applies.  I can only claim my
own copyright in this case if I contribute some creativity of my own - for
example, by adapting the novel into a screenplay, or by reworking the plot
to include zombies.  (Unfortunately, somebody has already beaten me to the
zombie bit.)

UK law is a little fuzzy here, but presumably my text file would not merit
its own copyright there.  (If I am wrong, and it would, then somebody please
let me know - I'll need to book a flight right away.)

Now, I'll admit, this example is ridiculous compared to a JPEG of a
public-domain painting, laser scans of a public-domain sculpture, or an Ogg
Vorbis clip of a public-domain sound recording.  However, the fundamental
argument remains: the act of *creation* is what earns copyright, not the act
of faithful transcription.

-- 
Jim Redmond
[[User:Jredmond]]