At 11:38 AM 9/1/2007, Bob Velke wrote: >If the manipulation of the image involved an element of >artistry (and not just technical skill), then there will be evidence >of it within the digital image file. Bob, That is sophistry.. A copyist of an oil painting by definition must be an accomplished artist and may create works representing his own intellectual concepts. But a copy is a copy is a copy. Making the best copy possible is (usually) the goal of the copyist, and accomplishment of that goal may include restoring missing or illegible portions of the original. I am not aware of a Court decision saying such enhancements are original and creative. In fact, my understanding is that they are akin to a publisher resetting a second edition of a book in a more legible type face. Do you have a Court decision supporting your position you can share with us? Pat

Pat said: >That is sophistry.. OK. Just so I understand, is your argument that manipulating of a digital image _cannot_ involve original artistry that is protected by copyright ... or that protection for that artistry is only lost when the result is "indistinguishable" in your mind from something which you have never seen? >Making the best copy possible is (usually) the goal of the copyist, >and accomplishment of that goal may include restoring missing or >illegible portions of the original. Those who argue against copyright for digital images frequently and conveniently fail to distinguish the "original" which I hold in my hand from the "original" (as originally published but no longer exists) which is what the modified image attempts to replicate. The unstated argument is that, no matter how much original artistry is involved, the manipulation of the image is not covered by copyright if the objective is to approximate an image of material which is itself out of copyright. There is simply no case law to support such a claim. Like the person who photographs a tombstone, the copyright status of the material in the image isn't relevant. It is the artistry in the image that is copyrighted. Unlike a "copiest," Pat, my objective is _not_ to exactly replicate the material that I have in my hand. The scanner does that and I agree that it is indistinguishable from the "original" (which I hold in my hand) and does not involve artistry, That's true even though, to use your misplaced analogy, someone had the skill to build the scanner. The artistry comes in after that. My objective is to construct something which does not exist and is _very_ distinguishable from what I have in my hand. I do that by manually changing every image in a way which adds value to it in order to approximate something ELSE - a true "original" of that document, (i.e., as it appeared when published). You would benefit from that artistry and then deny me a copyright on the irrelevant grounds that the text in the image is not copyrightable. Joan calls what I do "restoration" as if that justifies denying me a copyright. Perhaps you can cite a case where the application of artistry to "restore" a work that is in the public domain is not covered by copyright? >Do you have a Court decision supporting your position you can share with us? No, and you don't have one refuting it. I can only guess that intellectual property attorneys know better than to bring to court a case where the manipulation of the image clearly involves artistry. Bob Velke -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/982 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 5:21 PM