[Upd-discuss] Google public domain library?

[Michael Hart]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Richard Stallman wrote:

>    Is is possible there is a negative "not" missing in the first para below?
>
> If you're talking about this,
>
>    >> Richard Stallman wrote:
>    >>> Under US copyright law, converting the work to a different medium
>    >>> creates a new copyright.  So scanned files made from a public-domain
>    >>> book would not themselves be in the public domain.
>
> nothing was missing.  It says what it is supposed to say.

>    >>> Under US copyright law, converting the work to a different medium
>    >>> creates a new copyright.  So scanned files made from a public-domain
>    >>> book would not themselves be in the public domain.


OK. . .then all the lawyers I know disagree. . .a photograph of pages
could be copyrighted, but not a scan. . .at least until laws are revised.

AND. . .most importantly of all, the WORDS could not be copyrighted,
only the particular graphical representation of them could be. . .i.e.
new fonts, layouts, illuminations, etc.


I am not a lawyer. . .this is NOT a legal opinion or legal advice.

IANAL = I am not a lawyer.


Michael