Re: copyright under U.S. and Spanish law

On Sat, 02 Oct 1999, Tim Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

I was thinking in terms of the compilation aspect but didn't articulate it (write in haste, regret at leisure...) -- thanks for picking it up.

CS.

"Galvanising Ideas"

Colin Seeger, Consultant, Management of Intellectual Property. P.O Box 3227, Tamarama, Sydney, Australia 2026 Tel: (61) (02) 9365 1186, Fax (61) (02) 9365 1286 <seeger[_at_]ozemail.com.au> Received on Tue Oct 05 1999 - 12:04:34 GMT