[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Psymon

Revising and correcting errors in a text is a "creative element" -- I don't know how you can possibly argue that it's not.

I'm afraid it's not creative. It requires no creativity to correct a spelling mistake. It's a purely mechanical process which a trained monkey (who could use a dictionary) could do. Don't take my word for it: ask the good people at PG who spend a lot of time correcting public domain works.

I've also added in illustrations, too, which makes my book as a whole copyrightable.

I think you misunderstood what he's saying. The reason he said that an illustrated version of a public domain text may be subject to copyright is that the illustrations themselves may be copyrighted. E.g., the text of Kenneth Graham's "The Wind in the Willows" is in the life+70 public domain, but the well-known illustrations in that work are not. You do not gain a copyright by adding public domain illustrations to a public domain work.

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.

Because I've been creating ebooks for an awful lot of years, and I know how copyright law works when it comes to material that's in the public domain.

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.

I'm afraid that effort alone does not grant copyright, no matter how unfair that may seem. Creativity grants copyright. A mechanical process of comparing a potentially faulty text against a known-good text or a dictionary is not creative.

Go and talk to a copyright lawyer and see which of us is right.