> Australian copyright guidelines may be different than the US. Scott, you're > one of the experts here, what do you say? I'm not an "expert", just well-read. I don't know anything about Australian copyrights, though. I assume that they are part of the Berne Convention, but they could still have different specifics, e.g. length of term of copyright. Signatories to the Convention agree to enforce copyrights from other signatories, and have common standards for defining copyrighted material. But the length of copyright and other aspects could vary in each country, and apparently there are occasional disputes about whose copyright law holds where. An example I just read about is the "moral copyright", which the U.S. doesn't recognize <http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm>: Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. -- The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Article 6bis(1) The example <http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor777777> describes a film by John Huston that was colorized by Turner. Huston's heirs sued in France, which does recognize "moral copyright", and prevented the colorized film's presentation in that country. S R C A cott obert ranston nderson [email protected]