From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Evertjan.   
    writes:   
   >"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote on 21 Mar 2019 in   
   >soc.genealogy.britain:   
   >   
   >> OK, it might not be _copyright_ that is the relevant rights legislation.   
   >> But there is _something_. There is _some_ justification: if a company   
   >> has expended time and equipment, and therefore money, in making scans,   
   >> and you just (say) print off and sell the scans you've downloaded from   
   >> their website, they're entitled to be peeved. Ancestry and FMP being the   
   >> obvious companies for this newsgroup. (Ancestry at least - probably all   
   >> of them - watermark their images; for Ancestry, it's faint leaf   
   >> symbols.)   
   >   
   >Nonsense, this thread is ABOUT copyright.   
      
   Nobody, including you or me, _owns_ a thread on an unmoderated usenet   
   'group.   
      
   Although the OP used the word copyright in the subject, it was clear to   
   me that what is of concern to him is whether he can use information from   
   a newspaper; he's interested in anything that might cause a problem,   
   whether actual copyright or otherwise. I raised - and he thanked me for   
   doing so - the point that (AIUI - IANAL) the _content_ is the original   
   copyright (whoever if anyone owns that), but the _image_ - the scan -   
   might involve some rights (copyright or something else) of the entity   
   who scanned it, since they have expended time/money/equipment to   
   _create_ the scan. He has told us that the entity which created the scan   
   are not going to exercise any rights they might have in that respect,   
   but they - the scanning entity - are, wisely, not going to give any   
   advice about the copyright, if any, in the original text.   
   >   
   >And [international] law is not about "some justification",   
   >it is not "common law".   
   >   
   I think the OP and the scanning organisation are both in England; the   
   newspaper, I judge from the subject, definitely is. Therefore English,   
   rather than international, law may be relevant. But anyway, when I   
   referred to some justification, I was referring to any rights (copyright   
   or otherwise) that might vest in the scanning entity - and it seems   
   they're not going to exercise any such rights, so _that_ matter is moot.   
   >   
   So we're back to the question of original copyright, if any remains.   
   This would depend on whether the original contributor released any   
   rights they might have to the newspaper at the time of its publication -   
   a common condition these days, but I don't know if it was 100 years ago.   
   If the author managed to retain copyright: if the paper was published   
   100 years ago, and one might assume the contributor was 21 or older,   
   then they're going to be dead by now, but possibly less than 70 years   
   ago.   
   >   
   The OP hasn't told us where he's planning to use the material. (There   
   was/is no need to reveal this.)   
   >   
      
      
   LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way forward.   
   --   
   Fair petitions? See 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions @jpeg_G6;   
   https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   If something works, thank an engineer. (Reported seen on a bumper sticker.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)