On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Robert Rohde <raro...@gmail.com> 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.
Hhmmmm. I may have been mistaken. I distinctly recall a case with a fact pattern directly on point, involving a copyright claim in a work that was restored via a restorer's technical skill and judgment to create a "reproduction" of a original master's work that had been degraded over time, and that the restorer was denied copyright. However, I am not able to locate such a case upon searching. I suppose I may be misremembering (or it is possible I am remembering a case that is not US). For the US, I would say the logic of Bridgeman vs. Corel makes plain that technical skill in copying is insufficient for copyright; however, it is not directly on point since it didn't directly address the issue of restorations. -Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
