At 11:25 PM 3/10/2006, you wrote: >The point of HeritageQuest's copyright claim is that the images are *not* >exact scans of the public records but rather have "enhancements" which do >indeed involve artistry and original work and are therefore subject to >copyright. > >The result is a custom representation of the original work, one which >reflects artistry and is not merely a "slavish copy." The modifications >of the image (or "enhancments" as HeritageQuest calls them) go FAR beyond >the minimal level of added originality that is required in order for >reproductions of public domain material to be protected by copyright, >according to Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corporation, >among others. Bob, I think you've missed the poiint of Eastern v Tang. In that case, the defendent claimed the subject matter was common, ordinary, and public domain, thus making the photograph of those items uncopyrightable. That claim is, of course, not true as you and I could both take a photograph of a common, ordinary Daffodil, and both photographs would be copyrighted. The originality would lie in the choice of film, lighting, angle, etc. If your office replaces their 10 year old copying machine, the chances are the copies produced by the newer machine will be superior to those produced by the aged one. Are copies made on the new machine copyrightable because they are cleaner, more legible, etc.? 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 to me 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. >Like the photograph of the tombstone, you are entitled to find the >original material yourself and make your own copy/representation of it -- >but you are not entitled to copy someone else's image merely on the >grounds that the _subject_matter_ is in the public domain. Those who do >so (or sanction others doing so), do it at the peril of the rest of the >genealogical community because it drives out of business the many >hard-working folks who take great pains to make clean, readable images >available to you. 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 be saying that the "quality" of the reproduction has no bearing on the copyrightability of the copy. Thus, the need for licensing agreements to protect the investment of those businesses who work to make resources available to us. However, false and/or misleading claims of copyright are a disservice to the genealogical community. Pat