Book People Archive

copyright of photoreproduced text

>>>    Does anybody know the extent to which a photoreproduction
>  of an uncopyrighted text can be copyrighted?

>   It's protected to the full, as a photo is a new artistical work.
>Microfilms of books and newspapers, for example, are so protected,
>and from what I understand of the (Swedish and European) legal
>literature, making reproductions of microfilms requires the
>permission of the owner of the copyright of the photo.

I would add a couple of caveats. For one thing, in the US, a
legitimate defense against a copyright infringement lawsuit
is that you were unaware the material was copyrighted. (That's
why it's a good idea to add copyright notices to what you write,
even though it's not required by law in order to secure a
copyright.) So gosh, it's quite possible that I would come
across a reproduction of a reproduction of a copy of a scan of a
medieval manuscript, and I just
might not realize it was copyrighted. After all, it was
pretty reasonable of me to assume that the 800-year-old
manuscript was public domain, and there wasn't any copyright
notice on the copy /I/ saw.

Another thing to consider is that there is some case law in
the US that says that you can't copyright something that
requires no originality to create, like a mere compilation of data. I
believe the relevant case involved a company that published
a phone book based on a Baby Bell's phone book. The court
ruled that the phone book was a mere compilation of data, and
therefore the copyright couldn't be enforced. OK, IANAL, don't
trust me too much -- I'm just remembering this from a newspaper
article a few years back. So I really have to wonder whether
merely scanning a PD document results in a copyrightable work.
Obviously there's a big difference between that and an
Ansel Adams photo...

I just feel that the people who copyright scans of PD documents
are antisocial, and deserve to be treated that way. For instance
Cambridge or Oxford (I can't remember which) has scans of a
manuscript of the Song of Roland on the web. They claim it's
copyrighted, and it comes with a /very/ restrictive licensing
agreement. They're harming legitimate scholarship for selfish
purposes. I think the best response is to disrespect their copyright,
claim any legal excuse you can, and hope that the result is to
keep their selfish actions from paying off for them. Show the
world what a joke it is when they demonstrate their greed. Of
course, it borders on civil disobedience, and if you make the
wrong calculation of the legal risks, you could end up in court.