Enclosing the public domain: The restriction of public domain books | Hacker News Reader

Enclosing the public domain: The restriction of public domain books

firstmonday.org

37 pointswalterbell8 comments

They make it sound like all copies of the public domain book are being restricted. But reading the article it sounds like only the access to the repository's copy is restricted. Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean I have to give it away for free.

Has there been a ruling on if the scanning creates a derivative work in New Zealand? The crazy argument in the US has been that the digital scanned copy is a new derivative work that gets copyright based on the scan date.

The cousin of that argument is you can't copyright a media change. Otherwise I'd own the copyright on a ripped CD/DVD. Or I'd own the copyright on anything I have ever photocopied. Or for that matter, a printing press owner would own the copyright of anything he ever printed, which is certainly not the case.

(edited to add, another good example, is if media changes could be copyrighted, every academic paper with a quotation I've ever written would mean I now own the primary quoted source, which creates a weird chicken and egg for plagiarism where I don't need to cite myself as the source of my own words, so I need not cite anything I quote because I'd own it as part of the act of quoting it... so you can not have plagiarism if you can copyright media changes)

First, you are ignoring that derivative works have copyright from both the original author and the person making the creative alterations.

Second, plagiarism is an ethical standard that exists independent of law. It does not need copyright to exist. If you didn't write it, you quote it. Even if the original writer assigned copyright to you and you alone.

For the record: copyright in the US is largely about creativity. Other jurisdictions can and do vary (England & Wales have a "sweat of the brow" test).

I am not familiar with this "crazy argument".

On the contrary, Feist Publications v. Rurual Telephone Service Company[1] (SCOTUS, 1991) and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp[2] (NY district judge, 1990) both seem to show that scanning a document without original authorship does NOT support copyright in US law.

Do you have any sources that refute this?

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/case/499_US_340.htm

[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.ht...

I suspect he's referring to all the litigation surrounding Google Book Search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books#Copyright_infringe...

But as far as I know, there has been no ruling, yet, as everything is either still pending, or settled out of court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com