At 11:01 PM -0400 7/20/06, 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?
I think Dennis mean copying from the original, not a facsimile of the original.
But that's exactly what leaves me confused. Why exactly are
their copies of the original, whether photographs, scans, or whatever,
copyrightable when there is exactly zero added intellectual content?
What they are selling are facsimiles, and I can't remember seeing
copyright notices on those facsimiles I've happened to see. Is
this one of the differences between European copyright law--under
which I understand that page layout can be copyrighted--and U.S. law,
which has never recognized such a copyright?
Curious and willing to learn ...
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
