This is a MapHist list message (when you hit 'reply' you're replying to the whole list) o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o +
A few years back, there was a question on this list about copyright of reproductions/photographs of maps obviously in the public domain. The upshot was in US copyright law, photographs and some other reproductions of graphic works are considered to be new artistic creations and the copyright is claimed on them, not on the original graphic work. I haven't looked at all that many websites with maps on them and was wondering if there is any sense if most claim copyright of their contents. This is not the same as "copy protection" which attempts to keep the images from being downloaded and is a technical thing, not a legal thing. Even if a site allows free downloading, it could still claim a copyright, even if only a general one for the site itself, intended as a blanket for the contents. Any sense on the general practice? JBP
_______________________________________________ MapHist: E-mail discussion group on the history of cartography hosted by the Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Utrecht. The University of Utrecht does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. List Information: http://www.maphist.nl Maphist mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/maphist
