From: exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net   
      
   Charles Ellson  wrote on 23 Mar 2019 in   
   soc.genealogy.britain:   
      
   > On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 13:27:27 +0000, MB  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On 22/03/2019 00:58, Charles Ellson wrote:   
   >>> IMU they can prevent you transcribing but not due to copyright   
   >>> considerations rather than contractual. As with e.g. banning people   
   >>> with brown shoes from entering your premises, there might not be any   
   >>> legal sanction available other than not allowing access.   
   >>   
   >>When people use BNA transcriptions, they normally go through the   
   >>transcription and correct errors (or at least most of them).  This   
   >>improves the quality of the BNA's transcription and also their search   
   >>system which relies on the transcription.   
   >>   
   > If the OCR quality has been comparable to the Australian version then   
   > there is a fairly clear amount of new creation involved in those   
   > online corrected transcriptions.   
      
   However, a better machine OCR PROGRAMME is protected,   
   the output of such a programme is just data, and is NOT a new creative act,   
   even though such programme is adapted to the quirks of an ancient document.   
      
   You can learn your ape or dog to paint,   
   but the resulting paintings are not copyrightable.   
      
      
   --   
   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)