Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
Just think of it as a work of classical music. You can copyright the specific performance, but not the music. So while I'm allowed to have the sheet music to the work, I cannot steal a specific performace. So if the BSO were to record beethoven's 9th, I can't steal the recording even if I have a copy of the sheet music. This is the same situation. You can have the text for the work, but you cannot steal the specific versions. Transforming the Mobi version is violating copyright unless you get permission to do so.
|
I think it's an open question legally to what extent layout is copyrightable. (A performance is a different matter--it is a creative work of interpretation.) In regard to computer software, the US Copyright Office says: "Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or LAYOUTS" (my emphasis).
The Copyright Office also says: "Occasionally, the Office still receives an application to register white pages telephone directories. In 1991, Southwestern Bell submitted a claim for copyright registration in certain features of the St. Louis White Pages. The company claimed that the work was copyrightable either as a compilation or as a graphic work. The latter claim was based on the typeface and layout of the page, which included various “user-friendly” features. When the Copyright Office denied registration, Southwestern sued under the Administrative Procedures Act.(114) The court affirmed the Copyright Office’s denial of registration, finding no abuse of discretion.(115)"
The situation of public domain ebook formatting does not seem very different to me from the situation of the formatting of a telephone book. There is some creative choice that goes into both, but if the formatting of a telephone book is insufficient for copyright, the formatting of a public domain ebook also should be insufficient for copyright.
This is an important issue. We shouldn't want publishers to be able to prevent us from photocopying a reprint of a public domain book just by reprinting it in a different font on different page sizes.
All that said, the issue does seem to be up in the air legally, despite what the copyright office says. For instance, one court did say: "None of the individual elements of the Reader’s Digest cover—ordinary lines, typefaces, and colors—qualifies for copyright protection. But the distinctive layout of those elements is entitled to protection as a graphic work". For more information:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/200...ut-claims.html
Anyway, since the issue is up in the air, I will defer to RWood's desires, when I hear from him.