Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The books have a copyright because they don't just contain Thoreau's text. They contain introductory essays, footnotes, etc. I'm afraid that, like it or not, the actual text that Mr Thoreau wrote is in the public domain, and anyone can perfectly legally copy the text (but not the introduction, footnotes, etc) from such a book and do whatever they wish to with it. That really is the way that copyright works. Scholarly effort does not automatically grant copyright.
|
The
original printed versions of Thoreau's writings are in the public domain, but the
revised and
corrected emended versions of those are copyright those recent scholars.
That is stated quite clearly in that link that I provided earlier -- and it has nothing to do with any additional introductory essays, footnotes, etc. (which, of course are also naturally copyright their authors).
It's astonishing to me, actually, that you folks can't seem to grasp the concept of what is copyrightable and what's not. It seems to me that you're trying to
violate international copyright law by promoting some idea that just because something was written long ago, that
regardless of any new and original presentation of that work that it's effectively "up-for-grabs."
That screenshot I shared here a couple of posts back is a perfect example. Yes, the text on it is "public domain," but my rendering and presentation of it is by no means not.
Why in the world we're debating this is beyond me. For one thing it's just, well, the law -- widely accepted in most countries of this world -- but for another thing it's actually in your favour as a book designer.
I'm arguing not just in favour of what the
law is, but what is
common sense. You're arguing against the law, trying to rationalize
violating the law, but also rationalizing infringing on peoples' rights, never mind going against basic, really quite obvious, common sense.
I'm actually really quite bewildered and baffled by your stance in this. :/