On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Robert Rohde <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is settled case law in the US that restorations are not > copyrightable as they lack sufficient originality. The intent is to > create a slavish copy of the original work. Even if it takes a great > deal of skill and judgment to do that, there are insufficient grounds > for copyright in the US system. > > This may not be the case in other jurisdictions (such as the UK) which > place a greater emphasis on effort in determining eligibility for > copyright. > > -Robert Rohde
What case(s) settled this issue? I haven't been able to find anything credible one way or the other, but a number of organizations without an obvious financial interest in the issue seem to assume that restorations do create new copyrights. -Sage _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
