[WikiEN-l] copyright on scanned copy?

[Ray Saintonge]

geni wrote:

>On 11/17/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Big media companies do this all the time.  For example, if you go
>>to a bookstore and buy a recent printing of Alice's Adventures in
>>Wonderland, I think you'll find that the publisher has claimed
>>copyright on *their copy* of Tenniel's illustrations and/or
>>Carroll's text.  (Dover, at least, is a happy exception.)
>>    
>>
>Under UK law they could claim copyright on the typesetting for 20
>years. I don't know what the law in the US is about this though.
>
That's not a problem, because we aren't really interested in their
typeface, or any other format related effort on their part.  When you
scan and OCR a text the resulting typeface is quite generic.

>In the museums will not back you up if you take it to court. The last
>thing they want is a Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp type case
>taken taken to a higher level which would remove any remaining grey
>area.
>
This is strategically sound on the part of the museums.  They are well
aware of the confusion that abides in copyright law, and that's just
where they like things to be.  It is also strategically sound for movie
studios not to give specific permissions to use publicity stills, or
record producers to allow the use of album covers.  Certain uses will be
on a wink and nod basis.  That way they can reserve the initiative when
someone really displeases them.

>>The upshot is that if copies are copyrightable, it can be
>>effectively impossible to obtain your own free copy of a public
>>domain work, if the original is inaccessible.
>>    
>>
>that would depend on the ethical system you are opperating under.
>
Ethics and law are not synonymous.

>>I am not a copyright lawyer and I don't know if the practices
>>I've described are defensible from a copyright law point of view.
>>(*I'm* certainly not defending them.)  But I get the impression
>>that they do happen all the time.  In other words, the claim that
>>someone "deserves protection for all the work they did (or the
>>fees they paid) tracking down the old map and making the scan"
>>is apparently accepted in practice.
>>    
>>
>Not really. What is accepted is that you are free to try and claim
>copyright on PD material.
>
Of course.  You can put a copyright notice on your new edition of Alice
in Wonderland, and if you wrote a new introduction to the work that
introduction will be copyright protected.  A copyright statement really
means copyright to the extent that it is copyrightable.  A claim of
non-copyrightability is a much stronger defence than fair use to a
charge of infringement.  A person who produces a work of mixed copyright
and non-copyrightable material is not going to lead you by the hand
paragraph by paragraph to tell you which is which.  As a user you have
to figure that out for yourself.

(re-sent) Ec