Re: copyright under U.S. and Spanish law

On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Colin Seeger <seeger[_at_]ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> 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.

Ted Turner's copyright only applies to the colorizations. A second comer (a third comer, actually, since Turner is himself a second-comer to the films) might be able to reverse-engineer Turner's versions to black and white without infringing Turner's copyright (though it would still infringe an uncleared subsisting copyright in the underlying film). I can't see how a "fresh print of an old film" without any new cuts or previously unreleased frames, would qualify for copyright under U.S. law.

I'm also skeptical whether merely "improving the sonics" would constitute creative originality for copyright purposes under U.S. law. Simply "removing the hiss" probably wouldn't. In the U.S. copyright applies to "original works of authorship." You'd have to stretch the meaning of the words pretty far to find "authorship" in the process of filtering out spurious noises so that the underlying recording (which remains unchanged) can be heard better.

But a microform of a single public domain book which leaves the text of the book unchanged contains no original creative variation, and should not be copyrightable under US law. The alternative conclusion stinks of the discredited, superstitious "sweat of the brow" concept of copyright.

Tim Phillips
<hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> Received on Sat Oct 09 1999 - 01:04:38 GMT