Copyright (was Re: [sword-devel] John Gill)
Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:54:15 -0700
At 06:19 PM 7/5/2000 +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
>Paul Gear wrote:
>I can't speak for American copyright law, but for British and Australian
>law, there is definitely _no_ requirement that creativity be involved.
>We recently had some copyright and intellectual property lawyers come to
>speak at the Queensland AUUG conference
><http://www.auug.org.au/qauug/qauug2000.html>, and they made this very
I didn't find much info at that link, but you are correct. Australian law
does have such a thing. It is called a neighbouring right.
From what I see it has to do with photographic reproduction. But the idea
has broad implications and is what many want to see for electronic data
files. The original idea being that a person could have a lot invested in
producing a printable text of something that is PD. Perhaps the original
was in script or it is a collection of unwritten facts. Before photographic
reproduction was possible there was not a problem. But with it came the
possibility that someone could very easily and cheaply reproduce the new
work and unfairly compete.
As I understand it, (not that I know much), this is a print only kind of
thing and did not apply to electronic files. That may have changed or is on
the way! But, even with this kind of law one could still produce his own
typeset and print the work. He just couldn't take advantage of the other
guy's investment and just photo-reproduce it. Likewise, one should be able
to rescan and OCR a PD work and be free from infringing on another person's
scanning and OCRing labor. If it comes to that.
The news paper example is a "print" issue. A dictionary would also have
this same print issue. I would think it would be protected also because
they contain creative expression. (I sometimes just say "creative" but I
should be saying creative expression). Not all dictionaries express the
meaning of a word with the same phrases.