From: exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net
Charles Ellson wrote on 22 Mar 2019 in
soc.genealogy.britain:
> It is at the least creating a representation in a different media.
Not "creative" in the selse of the Berner Convention,
rolling a specific sigarette would be under copyright then
> There is further new creation if the process involves a significant
> degree of "repair".
Only if the repair is done by a person, not by a programme.
> The original copyright remains but further
> copyright might be created attached to the new version of the original
> work if there is sufficient value added.
No, value has nothing to do with it.
> The Berne convention is not
> the only legal matter to consider; each jurisdiction might have its
> own subtleties which could have significant differing consequences.
True, but unimportant for the person in another country, unless both laws
cover the same extension.
> While it entitles mutual recognition of copyright by the signatories
> it does not endow a copyright holder in country A with more rights
> (rather than the same rights) in country B than a citizen of country B
> enjoys so if country B deems that a particular form of reproduction
> has created new copyright then that applies in country B and the new
> author is entitled to the rewards (as also is the original author to
> his, if any).
Well, I will skip that undoubtedly important distionction.
> Your case only applies if it matches the rules in a
> particular country.
My case?
When a scan of a "creative" original of more than say 160 years ago is
published on the web, words like "Crown copyright" do not have any meaning
outside the confines of the U.K..
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
