From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:54:45 +0100, "Evertjan."   
    wrote:   
      
   >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,   
   >   
   It quite clearly is. "Creation" is not just the result of an author's   
   imagination, it involves producing something significantly different   
   that wasn't there before. A transcript of information in an image is   
   self-evidently a new and different work from the image. The words will   
   not be a new creation in an accurate transcription of an image of a   
   newspaper article but there is new creation of the manner in which the   
   words are presented.   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   They are as the human associated with the creature has exerted control   
   over the process and thus has rights over the creation. Your analogy   
   would disqualify any printed material from enjoying copyright as the   
   printing machine would have no conscious capability of creation unlike   
   what little a non-human animal might have.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)