From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk
In message , Evertjan.
writes:
>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,
(In English, it's the "Berne Convention" - there's no r at the end of
the first word. I appreciate that in Germanic languages there is.)
>rolling a specific sigarette would be under copyright then
You are hooked on the word "copyright". Yes, it was in the original
subject, but even the original poster has confirmed that he intended "or
other similar rights issues". Threads do drift - or, as in this case,
get clarified.
>
>> 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.
I question that. Especially if the programme is not public. Certainly
extra rights might be generated, whether within copyright specifically
or outside it.
>
>> 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.
Again, that may apply specifically in the case of copyright; adding
value may involve other rights.
>
>> 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.
Irrelevant in this case: all parties involved are in England or Wales.
(And I don't _think_ there are any relevant differences in laws relating
to _this_ matter between England and Wales.)
>
>> 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.
Because you're obsessed with copyright alone, whereas the question was
whether copyright or other matters - OK, not originally stated as such,
but understood by most readers - would impede his use of the material.
>
>> 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..
>
1. All participants are within the UK for this case.
2. Nobody mentioned Crown copyright.
3. The scan question has been clarified as irrelevant: the scanning
activity itself _does_ confer some extra rights (which may or may not
come under copyright), but the OP has explained that the entity which
did the scanning are not going to invoke those additional rights.
>
JPG
---
LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way we can
even _draft_ any "new deal" (assuming MV3 fails as expected).
--
Those who _don't_ favour the "revoke" petition have nowhere to express that.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 233soft.uk #fairpetitions
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If you can't construct a coherent argument for the other side, you probably
don't understand your own opinion. - Scott Adams, 2015
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
