Re: copyright under U.S. and Spanish law

On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Colis Seeger <seeger[_at_]ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> The microfiche is probably a copyright photograph. I doubt it has
> been "published" in accordance with the rather specific definition
> in most Copyright Acts around the world so it may have perpetual
> protection by virtue of not having been published.
>
> The change of media does not resurrect copyright in itself, but a
> current copyright one arises upon creation of the photographic
> image-carrier.

I doubt this would be the case under U.S. law. A microform of a public domain work would probably be considered a "mere reprint," not a derivative work, and therefore sub-copyrightable.

Of course, some microfilms are compilations ("17th century English Books") and the selection and arrangement of works included on a particular reel would likely support a copyright. A second comer could still copy any individual public domain work from the microfilm for any purpose. Copying more than one in a coordinated fashion without infringement would be trickier.

Of course this post is not legal advice and does not establish a lawyer-client relationship, etc.

Tim Phillips
<hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> Received on Sat Oct 02 1999 - 14:44:37 GMT