RE: VMs: Re: VMS-List-Archive Search Engine

["Peter Riis" <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There's an important case, Corel v. Bridgeman, that says you
can't:

> In ruling in favor of Corel and dismissing Bridgeman's claims,
the
> District Court held that substantially exact photographic
> reproductions of works of art are not independently
copyrightable,
> because they lack the component of originality required under
the
> copyright laws of both the United States and the United
Kingdom.
> While most photography is sufficiently original to warrant
copyright
> protection, the Court pronounced that "a photograph which is no
more
> than a copy of the work of another as exact as science and
technology
> permit" does not.
(from http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1999-01/0114.html)


-----Original Message-----
Greg Ewing:
Personally I don't think it should be possible to claim copyright
over
an image that's just a straight reproduction of something else
that's
not covered by copyright. But the law apparently says otherwise.

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list