Joan said: >>HeritageQuest claims that its images do precisely that. Their claim (and >>that of most digitizing companies) is that their creative post-processing >>of the raw image produces a new and better product than that which they >>slavishly copied from the public domain. To focus on whether the >>"underlying data" (as Kathi calls it) is in the public domain entirely >>misses their point and that of the supporting case law. > >They make the claim--but whether that claim is sustainable in a court of law >is highly questionable. It may be questionable to you - but, then, you haven't seen their original image which they claim to have altered to produce the final product. So you have no foundation from which to question the level of creativity that went into it or their resulting claim of copyright. You're welcome to challenge them in court or to defend yourself when they take you there <g> but if they can demonstrate that the version that they published bears any creative difference from their original image slavishly copied from the public domain, then you'll lose. In the meantime, I maintain that it is supremely irresponsible to tell people in this context that "you can't copyright an image of public domain material." 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 12:52 PM 3/11/2006, Bob wrote: >It may be questionable to you - but, then, you haven't seen their original >image which they claim to have altered to produce the final product. So >you have no foundation from which to question the level of creativity that >went into it or their resulting claim of copyright. > >You're welcome to challenge them in court or to defend yourself when they >take you there <g> but if they can demonstrate that the version that they >published bears any creative difference from their original image >slavishly copied from the public domain, then you'll lose. > >In the meantime, I maintain that it is supremely irresponsible to tell >people in this context that "you can't copyright an image of public domain >material." Bob, I replied to your post early this morning, but my reply was caught in Blocked Mail, so if it is eventually released by the Admin, I apologize for repeating :) I don't think anyone on this list has said you can not copyright an image of public domain material. What many of us are saying is that technical skill in making a copy has no bearing on the copyrightability of the copy. 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. 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." To me, that seems to say that the "quality" of the reproduction has no bearing on copyright status. That is why companies who reproduce public domain material rely on licensing agreements to protect their investment in product. However, they are not doing it to benefit the genealogical community, but to make money. False and/or misleading claims of copyright are a disservice to the genealogical community. Pat