Re: copyright under U.S. and Spanish law

On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Jeroen Hellingman <jehe[_at_]kabelfoon.nl> wrote:
>
> 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.

I'm wondering whether we end up with a situation where the photographic medium is copyyright but the content is not -- a bit like a fresh print of an old film. Ted Turner's people went one step further and colourised the films to ensure that any derrivatives from "their" negs were obviously not the same as the old B + W ones in general release.

Similarly, the ABC here made specially treated, digitised copies of public domain 78's and acquired a new copyright in the sound recordings because they improved the sonics -- removing the hiss etc.

By analogy, the same could apply to a microfich. I think. Maybe.

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 Thu Oct 07 1999 - 21:24:42 GMT