On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Thomas Dalton<[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/7/11 Gregory Maxwell <[email protected]>: >>>> This is where in the US, Bridgeman v Corel established that a >>>> "slavish" reproduction of a PD work does not constitute a new work >>>> that can be protected by copyright. >>> >>> We know that isn't the case under UK law, the question is whether the >>> photographs involved substantial investment of resources. >> >> No we don't. The specific matter at hand has never been in front of a >> court. It's just not clear cut, but it wasn't in the US prior to >> bridgeman either. > > I don't know if there is precise precedent, but from what I've read I > think most people agree that "sweat of the brow" is, at least in some > cases, enough under UK law.
I suppose we'd need a humidity reading from the room in which the photos were taken. -Andrew _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
