In message <51cc89ca$0$15953$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> writes: [] >Copyright on the original work is until 70 years after the author's >death. If you extract information from the text, putting it into your I'm not sure if things are different when the "author" is a body, or a public body, rather than an individual. (Or an individual doing work for a body.) >own words, you create an original work on which you hold the copyright >as it's your work. If you make a word for word transcription of a >written work, that's the same (apart from the work involved) as >photocopying or scanning it. It's the author's words, not yours and, >within the time frame, still the author's copyright. Even if it's >something as simple as a picture or table, if you don't change it, it >still belongs to the author or the estate as their original work. >Also, if the archive have made images of the original work to provide >you with a copy, they can claim that they own the copyright on those >images - if you could get to the original book and make your own Of the actual images, yes, but not the information contained in them: the copyright in the text (or whatever) still goes from its original creation. If you copy it out (verbatim) from the image, I don't _think_ it's any different from if you'd copied it out from the original - it wouldn't have any extra time added to it. Of course, the archive may try to impose such restrictions as a condition for letting you have access at all, but I have a feeling such restrictions may not be enforceable - though IANAL, certainly not a copyright one. >images, it would be different. That's how people can claim copyright on >pictures of things like the Mona Lisa. Yes, they can have copyright on their images. It'd be an interesting question if you managed to sneak an image somewhere where photography is forbidden: I rather suspect that you'd be in the clear on strictly copyright grounds, though you could perhaps be sued for loss of income or something. I think. >Unless you have a brain like a corkscrew, it's best not to think about >it. >Lesley Robertson > > Agreed! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Rule 46, Oxford Union Society, London: Any member introducing a dog into the Society's premises shall be liable to a fine of one pound. Any animal leading a blind person shall be deemed to be a cat.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:51:09 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <51cc89ca$0$15953$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Lesley Robertson ><l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> writes: >[] >>Copyright on the original work is until 70 years after the author's >>death. If you extract information from the text, putting it into your > >I'm not sure if things are different when the "author" is a body, or a >public body, rather than an individual. (Or an individual doing work for >a body.) > They are; with a corporate entity the copyright clock starts ticking at the time of publication. >>own words, you create an original work on which you hold the copyright >>as it's your work. If you make a word for word transcription of a >>written work, that's the same (apart from the work involved) as >>photocopying or scanning it. It's the author's words, not yours and, >>within the time frame, still the author's copyright. Even if it's >>something as simple as a picture or table, if you don't change it, it >>still belongs to the author or the estate as their original work. >>Also, if the archive have made images of the original work to provide >>you with a copy, they can claim that they own the copyright on those >>images - if you could get to the original book and make your own > >Of the actual images, yes, but not the information contained in them: >the copyright in the text (or whatever) still goes from its original >creation. If you copy it out (verbatim) from the image, I don't _think_ >it's any different from if you'd copied it out from the original - it >wouldn't have any extra time added to it. Of course, the archive may try >to impose such restrictions as a condition for letting you have access >at all, but I have a feeling such restrictions may not be enforceable - >though IANAL, certainly not a copyright one. > >>images, it would be different. That's how people can claim copyright on >>pictures of things like the Mona Lisa. > >Yes, they can have copyright on their images. > >It'd be an interesting question if you managed to sneak an image >somewhere where photography is forbidden: I rather suspect that you'd be >in the clear on strictly copyright grounds, though you could perhaps be >sued for loss of income or something. I think. > >>Unless you have a brain like a corkscrew, it's best not to think about >>it. >>Lesley Robertson >> >> >Agreed!