Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Copyright requires a creative element.
|
Revising and correcting errors in a text
is a "creative element" -- I don't know how you can possibly argue that it's not.
And, further, as that copyright lawyer's site said (as I quoted earlier)...
Quote:
|
Later versions or adaptations (e.g., translations, revisions, annotated and illustrated editions) of PD works may be protected by a separate copyright.
|
I've also added in illustrations, too, which makes my book
as a whole copyrightable. Now, I suppose you might argue that I've taken public domain engravings for use in my book, but each and every one of those images has been modified (size, shape, colour and other modifications) specifically for that use. Those are now "new" versions of previously-public domain works as well -- just like the aforementioned Mona Lisa with a moustache penciled in would be copyrightable.
It's beyond me why you want to argue against something that's in your favour -- let alone that's against common sense, that any person deserves credit for the efforts they've put in. And those efforts that I've put into these texts might not be overtly obvious (without poring over the entire text, word-for-word, and comparing them with the original 16th/17th century texts) but they most certainly aren't insignificant -- indeed, quite the contrary, they
are significant, genuinely scholarly textual emendations.
My revisions (especially)
are copyrightable, that's what the
law says
very clearly -- never mind that it just makes common sense that if any person puts genuine time and effort into revising, correcting, improving, etc. any public domain work then they deserve credit (and copyright) for having done so.
What you're advocating isn't protecting peoples' rights to disseminate public domain texts, but rather you're advocating
violating very clearly copyrightable works. You're saying to any scholars and other researchers out there "Go ahead, put in a ton of time and effort into coming up with a more authoritative edition of an author's work, so that the rest of us can just up and steal your work for our own use, because the crappier original source material that you started with was in the public domain."
I just can't understand why you're advocating
against copyright (when and where it very clearly it exists, both legally and common-sensically) and instead advocating
for violating copyrightable works, simply because doing so works in your favour. At least, I really can't think of what else your motivation would be, Harry.
