Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug McLaren" wrote in message ... In article , arne thormodsen wrote: | What really annoyed me was it has my call letters on the front page. | He was too lazy or did not know how to remove it. | | Next time try call letters plus "if this is being sold to you by other | than the owner of these call letters a crime is being committed". But what crime exactly is being committed? Now that you mention it this is a good question. Copyright covers `original works of authorship', according to http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...l#what_protect. Merely scanning something created by somebody else hardly makes it an original work ... It doesn't appear to be that simple. Google "facsimile copyright law" and prepare to wade throught a dense maze of passages, all different. Apparently a unique typographical arrangement of a public domain work, for example, *can* be copyrighted. But only the layout itself, not the words. And anyway don't take my word for it, it looks like a complex topic. --arne |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
arne thormodsen wrote: "Doug McLaren" wrote in message . .. In article , arne thormodsen wrote: | What really annoyed me was it has my call letters on the front page. | He was too lazy or did not know how to remove it. | | Next time try call letters plus "if this is being sold to you by other | than the owner of these call letters a crime is being committed". But what crime exactly is being committed? Now that you mention it this is a good question. The answer is "copyright infringement." grin Not necessarily of the copyright held by the owner of the call-letters. but there *is* a copyright on the underlying work. Which the owner of the call-letters *also* violated, in all probability. If the person who produced the scans has made their work available 'for free', *they* probably only have a civil 'tort' action against the party who is selling their 'derivative work' (see below) without their permission. The owner of the 'underlying' copyright, who was presumably 'making money' from sales of the work, has a basis for a civil suit action, *and* basis for a criminal complaint. Of course, the underlying copyright owner also has basis for a civil action against the derivative work "publisher", as well. Copyright covers `original works of authorship', according to http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...l#what_protect. Merely scanning something created by somebody else hardly makes it an original work ... It doesn't appear to be that simple. Google "facsimile copyright law" and prepare to wade throught a dense maze of passages, all different. Apparently a unique typographical arrangement of a public domain work, for example, *can* be copyrighted. But only the layout itself, not the words. And anyway don't take my word for it, it looks like a complex topic. You've got the basics of it right. "complex" doesn't -begin- to cover it. *ALL* copyright law is a _deep_ swamp. wry grin Two sections of it are notably deeper, and populated with more, meaner, alligators, than the other parts. One is "fair use" exemptions, the other is "derivative works". "derivative works" are works, involving some original/creative effort, but 'based on' the creative work of another. The person who creates the 'derivative work' owns the copyright on _their_ "creative effort" part of the final work, and that part *only*. To reproduce that derivative work, you must have the consent/permission of *BOTH* the creator of the derivative work, _and_ that of the owner of the original, or 'underlying' work. Postulating that both copyrights are still in effect. If the 'underlying' work _is_ in the public domain, the derivative work copyright is _still_ valid. A 'raw' scanned image of a page (or a series of scans of a booklet) does not satisfy the 'creative' requirement for a derivative work. A scanned image that has been 'cleaned up' -- rotated to square, de-speckled, contrast-enhanced, etc. -- based on the esthetic judgement of a person, *does* have creative effort involved, and 'derivative work' protection applies. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
wrote: "derivative works" are works, involving some original/creative effort, but 'based on' the creative work of another. The person who creates the 'derivative work' owns the copyright on _their_ "creative effort" part of the final work, and that part *only*. To reproduce that derivative work, you must have the consent/permission of *BOTH* the creator of the derivative work, _and_ that of the owner of the original, or 'underlying' work. By definition, the producer of a validly copyrighted derivative work does not need the permission of the owner of the underlying work. BZZZT! thank you for playing. To produce a derivative work, no. To *reproduce* that derivative work for anything other than 'personal use', or for 'fair use' purposes. yes. (See the "Gone With the Wind" controversy.) Hence, the reproducer of the derivative work need not go any farther back than the producer of the derivative work. _Current_ copyright law *expressly* disagrees with you. As does a large body of case law on point. 17 USC 103 (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. But you are free to act as you please. I am not your lawyer, and I am not advising you on the matter. Postulating that both copyrights are still in effect. If the 'underlying' work _is_ in the public domain, the derivative work copyright is _still_ valid. A 'raw' scanned image of a page (or a series of scans of a booklet) does not satisfy the 'creative' requirement for a derivative work. A scanned image that has been 'cleaned up' -- rotated to square, de-speckled, contrast-enhanced, etc. -- based on the esthetic judgement of a person, *does* have creative effort involved, and 'derivative work' protection applies. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
BAMA & Bittorrent | Boatanchors | |||
BAMA is now being mirrored!!!! | Boatanchors | |||
BAMA is being mirrored!!!! | Equipment | |||
BAMA is being mirrored!!!! | Equipment | |||
BAMA Ftp Site Unavailable? | Boatanchors |