On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:22, <wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Where some seem to think that > just because the work is PD there is a right to all encodings of that > work. >
To use an extreme hypothetical example: The novel "Pride and Prejudice" is in the public domain. It will take me a long time to retype the entire thing into a text file. If my copy is verbatim - that is, if I have faithfully transcribed the original manuscript - then has the sweat of my brow earned me the right to claim copyright on my text file? Under US case law, the answer is pretty clearly "no". Jane Austen did the actual writing, and I was just making a copy (albeit in a different format). Copyright only applies to new creative works, and here I have not done anything creative, so no new copyright applies. I can only claim my own copyright in this case if I contribute some creativity of my own - for example, by adapting the novel into a screenplay, or by reworking the plot to include zombies. (Unfortunately, somebody has already beaten me to the zombie bit.) UK law is a little fuzzy here, but presumably my text file would not merit its own copyright there. (If I am wrong, and it would, then somebody please let me know - I'll need to book a flight right away.) Now, I'll admit, this example is ridiculous compared to a JPEG of a public-domain painting, laser scans of a public-domain sculpture, or an Ogg Vorbis clip of a public-domain sound recording. However, the fundamental argument remains: the act of *creation* is what earns copyright, not the act of faithful transcription. -- Jim Redmond [[User:Jredmond]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
