I thought the law was fairly clear on this. Original documents that are
out of author's or
originator's copyright are still subject to "publication copyright".
Thus if I have an original copy of say an 1857 issue of "Punch" I can claim
copyright on reproductions of images from that particular artefact.
Equally, if you have an original copy of the same issue, you can claim
copyright
on reproductions made from your copy.
The proprietors of Punch have no copyright on the material itself, but
can, in the same way, claim publication copyright on reproductions they
supply
from original copies in their own library.
This is essentially thge same law that applies to reproductions
of things like old paintings etc.
Pete Higginbotham
Frank Sharman wrote:
> Humphrey Southall wrote:
>
> "... unfortunately the only maps to show parishes are still within
> copyright -- a 1957 OS map, and a David and Charles reprint of 19th
> century
> maps."
>
> The original 19th century maps would have been in copyright but
> presumably
> are no longer. A straightforward copy of a non-copyright document is not
> itself copyright. The reason for this is that the copy does not have any
> originality - an essential ingredient of copyright.
>
> This seems to be the law. The best reference is Tim Padfield, Copyright
> for Archivists and Users of Archives, Public Record Office, 2001, at
> page 12ff.
>
> People who make copies of old documents for sale do not like this. They
> will argue either that the cases on this point were wrongly decided; or
> that their copy does in fact have sufficient differences as to make it
> original. And I am sure that the World Intellectual Property
> Organisation
> will be trying hard to clarify or alter the law.
>
> If the David and Charles maps can be used for your purpose you might
> have a
> word with them to see if they can produce any reason why you should
> not use
> them for those purposes.
>
>
>
> Frank Sharman
> Wolverhampton
> 01902 763246
>
|