On 25 Jul 2006 at 9:52, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: > WRT Johannes's comments relating to whether or not microfilm images of > material may be copyrighted, I suspect that this is very much > jurisdictionally dependent. My recollection (which may be in error) > is that in the U.S., the relevant case law is that microfilm images > do not contain sufficient new editorial content to meet the standard, > and microfilm images are generally not provided with any copyright > apart from any copyright which might still subsist in the original. > The situation may very well be different in Germany than in the U.S.
But libraries may not be restricting microfilm copying on the basis of a publisher's copyright, but on the basis of the copyright in the unpublished MSS represented by the microfilms. NYPL would not let me make copies of microfilms from Berlin of Schumann's 1840 book of Lieder -- I had to do all my work at the microfilm reader. Of course, the question now occurs to me: would the MSS in the Saur microfilm still count as unpublished once the microfilm has been published? In they NYPL case, the film had been acquired directly from the library that owned it, so it's really not published. In the case of the archive Kim was dealing with, that's quite different. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
