Peter Higginbotham wrote:
>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.
I do not think this is the case - though I agree that a lot of publishers
and others think that it is.
What confuses the issue is that if I have an out of copyright original I
can sell you a copy subject to a term in the contract that you will not
reproduce it without my permission and, if I want to make money from it,
unless you pay me for doing so. This is how most picture libraries, art
galleries and the like, operate. But that contract is personal and cannot
bind others. So if I let you have my out of copyright photo subject to
such conditions, and you print it in a book, then anyone else can copy it
from that book and use it - the photo has escaped into the public domain.
Anyway, that's my reading of it. But I have ideas about information being
free and I may be influenced by a bit of wishful thinking. It would be
nice to get this settled with greater clarity and certainty - but I do not
know how that might be done!
Frank Sharman
Wolverhampton
01902 763246
|