Pat said: >I don't think anyone on this list has said you can not copyright an image >of public domain material. Actually, that's precisely what Joan said on March 9th <g> and that's why I responded (quoting her in my message). Others have made similarly blanket statements which perpetuate false rumors about what falls under copyright and what does not. >For many years, I made internegatives and prints from slides for a major >text book publishing company in New York. They sent the work half way >across the country because the process I used was superior to others >available nearer to hand, and because of the skill and artistry I employed >in making the prints for half tone reproduction. That skill and artistry >included removal of defects, enhancement of faded or shadowed areas, >etc. However, the superiority of the process and skills I used did not >create an original work eligible for copyright protection. The copyrights >remained with the photographer who had created the original work I was copying. That's because he held the copyright and must have granted you permission to modify it. When the material being copied is in the public domain, no such permission is required and the resulting creative work is copyrighted by the "artist." >I agree that the subject matter of the image is irrelevant to the >copyright status of the image. However, Kaplan said in Bridgeman: >"Only 'a distinguishable variation' -- something beyond technical skill -- >will render the reproduction original." Yes, I've repeatedly referred to a creative element, beyond technical skill. As the court held in Eastern America Trio v. Tang, that creative element includes enhancing an image by computer in an effort to achieve a desired result. Bob Velke President Archive CD Books USA www.ArchiveCDBooksUSA.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 3/10/2006

At 01:53 PM 3/11/2006, you wrote: >That's because he held the copyright and must have granted you permission >to modify it. When the material being copied is in the public domain, no >such permission is required and the resulting creative work is copyrighted >by the "artist." No. The skill employed by the copyist (me), i.e. choice of film, exposure, development time; then choice of paper grade, exposure time, dodging and burning to enhance detail and unblock shadows in the final print, were all editorial decisions based on my expertise, made with the intent of making the best possible print/copy suitable for conversion to half tone. Many times my final prints were much "better" than the original. But, my expertise/technical skills did not make a new, creative original eligible for copyright protection. In terms of copyright law, those editorial skills were no different than changing a type face in a second edition to make that edition more "readable". A copy is a copy is a copy. Now, if you want to talk about making an artistic arrangement of microfilm reels on the desk in your office, then lighting them to highlight the metallic glint of the reels, and choice of lens for distortion control and/or emphasis, and .... According to the summaries I have been able to find, that was the basis for the Eastern America v. Tang decision. Pat