From: exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote on 22 Mar 2019 in
soc.genealogy.britain:
> 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.)
Well, the place is valled "Bern" in Bern, not "Berne",
and "Berner" is the adjective form,
but what the hell does it matter, I am not in your schoolclass.
>>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.
I am discussing copyright and the Berner Convention here, not skillfull
sigarette rolling.
>>> 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.
And I am stating just the copyright part, not local laws in Timbuktu or
elsewhere.
>>> 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.
I wrote that, what is the matter with you. You can make another scope for
your argument, my scope is copyright law.
>>> 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.)
What case?
>>> 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 distinction.
>
> 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.
Are they?
And even so, that is outside the scope of copyright law.
--
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)
|
