On 10/17/06, Roger Luethi <collector(a)hellgate.ch> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that is their official position,
because the idea that works
written hundreds of years ago are still under copyright is entirely and
obviously without merit (not counting special cases like Crown copyright).
Those who have experienced the cost, time, and creativity which goes
into the restoring and digitizing required for a high quality
reproduction do not find this position shocking.
Nor is it weakly established. Bridgeman v. Corel was a surprising
outcome considering established practices, and I expect future cases
will substantially restrain the expansive application of that ruling.