Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
But to qualify for copyright, there must be some level of creativity involved. The US cases that have been ruled on (starting with Bridgeman v Corel) say that merely reproducing a 2D work exactly is not a creative act, and so the resulting copy does not attract its own copyright protection. However this ruling is not binding on all courts, and there is no decision that is, so until a case gets all the way to the supreme court noone knows for certain what the outcome would be.
|
Copyright law does differ from country to country in this area. UK copyright law, for example, states that if you've expended a non-trivial amount of effort making copies of works that are in the public domain, then you hold a copyright of those specific copies that you've created (eg if you've scanned a book, nobody can copy those scans without your permssion). I understand that US copyright law has no such provision.