At 11:01 PM 7/20/06 -0400, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: >On 7/20/06, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Saur can copyright the images themselves -- not their content, which can be >>copied out by hand or transcribed by an OCR program. > >I understand the logic about not copying the photograph, which is Saur's >copyrighted material. >A copy would be essentially duplicating their materials, but why would OCRing >material be ok? >Isn't that essentially a mechnical reproduction of the photograph?
It creates an ephemeral copy during the OCR process while in the presence of the physical original photo (or microfilm). The ephemeral copy is destroyed when the OCR is complete, leaving you with the residual content -- not a copy of the photo. That should satisfy the digital copy issue (which really applies to sound recordings and computer software, but better to cover the whole question). I don't know the legal niceties, but OCR is effectively an amanuensis to copying the content, which the photographer does not own. For more on what the photographer does and does not own, check out US code title 17 chap.1 sec.1 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html for definition of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works", sec.103b at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000103----000-.html for limitations on derivative works and sec.113b at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000113----000-.html plus the notes. It doesn't mean one can't be sued. Anybody can be sued for perceived wrongs. :) Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ My blog: http://maltedmedia.com/bathory/waam-blog.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
