Re: New editions of public domain works

On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
>
> Assuming this Australian policy carries over into digital versions...

It is generally accepted that it doesn't. It's an ink & paper relic.

> ...does "first publication" automatically secure that 25 year copyright
> on the ASCII form of a text (assuming ASCII would somehow be legally
> interpreted as "typography" under Australian law)?

Suppose the law was extended to over an 'ASCII edition' (which it does not at the moment), I doubt that would prevent someone else creating their own ASCII version. Copyright is not a monopoly right - it is a right to prevent copying.

> If not, it seems it would be almost impossible
> to prove infringement, even if direct copying were made from another
> e-text source, so long as the wording were identical to the original
> public domain source.

Yes and no. There are ways of tagging a particular version so as to be able to say with confidence that a copy has been made from it.

> Also, could a "new" 25-year copyright be obtained by someone else who
> reproduced the same p.d. work, but made the ASCII "layout" different by,
> e.g., making all lines 60 characters rather than 80? It all smacks of
> the absurd to me, but I am viewing it from a US perspective.

It's no more absurd than most neighbouring rights. They aren't really copyrights in the sense that most people think of copyright. They are simply there to protect investment, not creativity (despite some interesting claims by some in the industry from time to time)

     | jamie wodetzki
   \ / copyright research officer
 a c l i s
   / \ no responsibility taken for damage or harm arising from     / \ reliance on comments made by me in this context Received on Sun Mar 03 1996 - 22:54:31 GMT