By this reading, no old work can be considered public domain **or** copyrightable unless it is compared character by character to **all** existing copies in the world to determine a list of variances. Each work with a unique variation is automatically copyright by the owner of that physical copy but presumably if two or more copies exist with that variation then it is public domain--unless the same owner has those copies. Clearly this idea of copyright is untenable.
- So, I
- >can publish the words of a Shakespeare sonnet that I copied from a
- >17th century volume, assuming that the very same words and
- >orthography appear in other extant copies of the volume."
Yes, I misspoke here with the last clause. Apologies for adding to the confusion. I agree that you don't have to cover the text letter by letter. Any text of that age is in the public domain.
A museum or rare book library's ownership of an old book does not permit it to copyright the content (i.e. words) of the book . They don't own that intellectual property--its in the public domain. What they own is the book itself and the right to grant permission for the publication any photographic depictions of it. This is what I was trying to say.
Sara
David P. Wheatland Curator
Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments
Department of the History of Science
Harvard University, Science Center 251c
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel: 617-496-9542
Fax: 617-496-5932
--------------------------------------------------- https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial
