On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:20:18 -0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In article ,
arne thormodsen wrote:

"Doug McLaren" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
arne thormodsen wrote:

| What really annoyed me was it has my call letters on the front
page.
| He was too lazy or did not know how to remove it.
|
| Next time try call letters plus "if this is being sold to you by
other
| than the owner of these call letters a crime is being committed".

But what crime exactly is being committed?


Now that you mention it this is a good question.

The answer is "copyright infringement." grin

Not necessarily of the copyright held by the owner of the call-letters.
but there *is* a copyright on the underlying work. Which the owner of
the call-letters *also* violated, in all probability.

If the person who produced the scans has made their work available 'for free',
*they* probably only have a civil 'tort' action against the party who is
selling their 'derivative work' (see below) without their permission.

The owner of the 'underlying' copyright, who was presumably 'making money'
from sales of the work, has a basis for a civil suit action, *and* basis for
a criminal complaint.

Of course, the underlying copyright owner also has basis for a civil action
against the derivative work "publisher", as well.

Copyright covers `original works of authorship', according to
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...l#what_protect.
Merely scanning something created by somebody else hardly makes it
an
original work ...


It doesn't appear to be that simple. Google "facsimile copyright law"
and prepare to wade throught a dense maze of passages, all different.
Apparently a unique typographical arrangement of a public domain work,
for example, *can* be copyrighted. But only the layout itself, not
the words. And anyway don't take my word for it, it looks like a
complex topic.

You've got the basics of it right. "complex" doesn't -begin- to cover it.

*ALL* copyright law is a _deep_ swamp. wry grin

Two sections of it are notably deeper, and populated with more, meaner,
alligators, than the other parts. One is "fair use" exemptions, the
other is "derivative works".

"derivative works" are works, involving some original/creative effort, but
'based on' the creative work of another.

The person who creates the 'derivative work' owns the copyright on
_their_ "creative effort" part of the final work, and that part *only*.

To reproduce that derivative work, you must have the consent/permission
of *BOTH* the creator of the derivative work, _and_ that of the owner of
the original, or 'underlying' work.

By definition, the producer of a validly copyrighted
derivative work does not need the permission of the owner of the
underlying work. (See the "Gone With the Wind" controversy.) Hence,
the reproducer of the derivative work need not go any farther back
than the producer of the derivative work.

Postulating that both copyrights are
still in effect. If the 'underlying' work _is_ in the public domain,
the derivative work copyright is _still_ valid.


A 'raw' scanned image of a page (or a series of scans of a booklet) does
not satisfy the 'creative' requirement for a derivative work.

A scanned image that has been 'cleaned up' -- rotated to square, de-speckled,
contrast-enhanced, etc. -- based on the esthetic judgement of a person,
*does* have creative effort involved, and 'derivative work' protection
applies.

In article ,
wrote:

"derivative works" are works, involving some original/creative effort, but
'based on' the creative work of another.

The person who creates the 'derivative work' owns the copyright on
_their_ "creative effort" part of the final work, and that part *only*.

To reproduce that derivative work, you must have the consent/permission
of *BOTH* the creator of the derivative work, _and_ that of the owner of
the original, or 'underlying' work.

By definition, the producer of a validly copyrighted
derivative work does not need the permission of the owner of the
underlying work.

BZZZT! thank you for playing.

To produce a derivative work, no.

To *reproduce* that derivative work for anything other than 'personal
use', or for 'fair use' purposes. yes.

(See the "Gone With the Wind" controversy.) Hence,
the reproducer of the derivative work need not go any farther back
than the producer of the derivative work.

_Current_ copyright law *expressly* disagrees with you. As does a large
body of case law on point.

17 USC 103 (b)
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply
any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such
work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope,
duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in
the preexisting material.


But you are free to act as you please. I am not your lawyer, and I am
not advising you on the matter.

Postulating that both copyrights are
still in effect. If the 'underlying' work _is_ in the public domain,
the derivative work copyright is _still_ valid.


A 'raw' scanned image of a page (or a series of scans of a booklet) does
not satisfy the 'creative' requirement for a derivative work.

A scanned image that has been 'cleaned up' -- rotated to square, de-speckled,
contrast-enhanced, etc. -- based on the esthetic judgement of a person,
*does* have creative effort involved, and 'derivative work' protection
applies.