[WikiEN-l] copyright on scanned copy?

[Ray Saintonge]

Steve Summit wrote:

>Zero wrote:
>  
>
>>There is no artistic input to the result, and in this
>>case the scanner even advertises that the computer
>>file is a precise reproduction of the original.
>>    
>>
>There may be no artistic input, but some will claim that they
>deserve protection for all the work they did tracking down the
>old map and making the scan.  To be lily-white, it can be argued
>that you're supposed to track down an original copy of the old
>map yourself, and make your own scan.
>
Protecting that effort was no doubt a motivation behind the 15-year
database protection that has been adopted in the EU even for works that
are long out of copyright.  Fortunately, AFAIK, this has not been
adopted (yet) outside the EU.

Lily-white strategy is often losing strategy because you choose to put
yourself at a disadvantage before you start.

>(On the other hand, if the computer file truly is a precise
>reproduction of the original, you can convince yourself that
>using it is fine, since the alleged copyright holder can't prove
>you're using their scan.)
>
And if the scanner claims that his is a precise reproduction when it has
been altered for the purpose of protecting copyrights then the scan
could very well be in breach of the author's moral rights.

>This situation gets particularly interesting in the case of
>famous art.  Most museums disallow cameras; casual visitors
>are not allowed to photograph or otherwise make copies of
>the artwork within, even though it's long out of copyright.
>If you're a publisher and you want to make a copy for an art
>book you're printing, you have to pay the museum a -- sometimes
>hefty -- licensing fee.  Having paid this fee, you're not going
>to let people freeload on you, so you're going to slap your own
>copyright on your art book.  And the museum will back you up on
>this: they make money on those licensing fees; in fact part of
>their licensed-copy agreement is often (I think) a requirement
>that the licensed copies disallow reproduction.
>
If you go into a museum and take surreptitious photos of long out of
copyright paintings you do so at your own risk.  You may have a breach
of contract in your personal relation with the museum, but that is not a
copyright issue even when you put your pictures on the net.  They can
kick you out if they catch you, but they may not have the right to seize
your camera or its contents.

I rather liked the practice in the National Museum in Budapest.
Admission is free, but you need to pay a flat fee if you want to take
pictures, a higher fee if you are using a movie camera.  What you do
with the pictures afterwards is your business.

(re-sent) Ec