At 02:34 PM 7/21/06 -0700, Rafael Ornes wrote: >http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html
This case applies to photographs as reproductions. Do we know how much of the Saur is simple reproduction vs. an enhanced and/or three-dimensional photograph? Knowing nothing about them, I perhaps incorrectly assumed that they were like photographs of an open book, not akin to a cropped photographic photocopy of flat pages, as well as being part of an organized collection that could be copyrighted as a whole. If they are simply flat reproductions akin to photocopies, there would likely be no added creative value ... though I'd hate to get into the legal realm over it. If it were me, I'd copy the original public domain content without copying the added creative value (which is why OCR might be a good route). My own experience is one of care on the part of the cable and news organizations not to get entangled in any sort of rights tussle. The photos on these pages (http://bathory.org/erzsorig.html and http://bathory.org/erzsfoto.html) are among those most often requested in high-resolution versions, and they have always paid without objection the token photo fee to obtain them -- even for the 2D portrait. I suppose they could steal and share the 2D one, but they haven't yet. 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
