Re: copyright under U.S. and Spanish law

On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Paul Gough <paul.gough[_at_]po.state.ct.us> wrote:
>
> If I understand this correctly.
>
> 1. The original work is definitely public domain
>
> 2. The photographic copy (microfilm) is probably a copyright, which
> would preclude making direct copies of the film to another film
> for sale or storage.

The act of creating a photographic reproduction of a work is NOT copyrighted, because it lacks creativity of itself -- it is merely a technical process. The compilation of works on the microfilm might be copyrighted, if it is not simply copyring everything.

> Now my question
>
> 3. Paper or other copies made from the copyright film, such as a scan
> or typed or handwritten copies of text or of prints or artwork
> made from this microfilm, would be public domain (is this correct?),
> or would I have to make my own copy from the original?

My question: if you would go ahead and convert the content on the microfilms to for example data in a database, how on earth will the publisher of the microfilm know you used his microfilms instead of from your own set of copies? Unless he has sneakingly changed some letters in the original images, there is no way of knowing that, so how can one be copyrighted, and the other not?

In the EU we have the database directive, and although only aimed at digital works, some implementations of it in national laws also include printed works, and these might include your Spanish microfilms. -- but I don't know details.

Jeroen

Jeroen Hellingman
<jehe[_at_]kabelfoon.nl> Received on Tue Oct 05 1999 - 19:56:53 GMT