[WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...

[WJhonson at aol.com]

<<In a message dated 1/13/2009 10:28:59 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
fastfission at gmail.com writes:

I once  e-mailed them about this and the person who e-mailed me
back said that they  were claiming the copyright on the _scans_, not the
images  themselves.>>
 
That is sort of the argument I was making a while ago, and I was greatly  
interested in the recent copyright case where some museum (I can't remember the  
details) was claiming copyright over high quality images they produced of old  
(flat) artworks (i.e. paintings or drawings).
 
The case went against them I believe and the reasoning was repeated here  on 
this list just recently.
It would seem pretty clear that the same reasoning could be used against  say 
Google books scans of old documents/books/maps.
That these scans themselves enjoy no special ability for a new copyright  
claim vis a vis the expiration of old copyrights (pre 1922).
 
Will Johnson
 
 


**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)