Copyright of digital copy of out of copyright book

[Una_Persson]

@mhendo

The most relevant case might be Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation, decided in the Southern District of New York, in 1999. While this decision related to the reproduction of out-of-copyright artworks, rather than texts, it seems that the court’s reasoning in this case would, and should, apply to a simple reproduction of an out-of-copyright text.

I agree.

The court found, essentially, that new copyright does not adhere to a simple copy of an out-of-copyright work. Just taking an old work and making a copy of it does not allow you to claim copyright in the new version. In the court’s opinion:Now, i’ve been informed by some of the esteemed lawyers on this board (e.g., Gfactor) that Bridgeman v. Corel is not a controlling case, because of the court in which it was decided. That is, if a similar case is brought before a different court in the future, that court will be under no obligation to treat Bridgeman v. Corel as a binding precedent.

However, based on my rather limited reading on the subject, many copyright lawyers argue that the main reason that other such cases have not come before the courts since Bridgeman is that most people believe that the decision in Bridgeman was the right one, and would not be overturned. Note, however, that the judge was pretty scathing of what he saw as the incompetence of the plaintiff’s lawyer in this case.

As I’ve posted before, I’ve done some research in this area (it was prompted by the actions of one of our fine, upstanding, salt-of-the-earth SDMB members who tried to sic a museum on me for committing “copyright infringement” with my online art gallery)…anyhow - to add to what you’ve said, I have been personally informed by two legal experts in the field, both who work for museums, that most museums and libraries fully believe that Bridgeman would be upheld, and they personally told me that the “general consensus” is to continue to put scarecrow text on web pages claiming copyright on slavish copies of 500 year-old works but without any means or methods to enforce the claim.

The OP might mail “History Reprinter” and ask them under what basis they make their claim of copyright and say that “no part of this book maybe reproduced in any way without permission.” Given my very long experience with people like this, they will likely claim:

1. That their “sweat of brow effort” is indeed copyrighted, and their lawyer is too busy to send their detailed citations to pirates and thieves.

2. That the DMCA allows them to make the claim.

3. That “the Patriot Act” allows them to make the claim.

4. That the “Berne Convention” allows them to make the claim.

5. That “their lawyer told them” and that’s that.

6. Each page is its own public domain work, and the book is a “discrete collection” of public domain works (the pages), therefore the collection is protected. I guess by that logic each brushstroke on a painting is a public domain work, thus the painting is a collection of public domain works.

7. Since a book or painting really is 2-D, in fact no 2-D item actually exists in our universe, it’s actually 3-D and thus not covered by Bridgeman.

(No shit, I’ve actually heard people claim (6) and (7).)

8. No reply (this happens about 50% of the time IME).

If you try to call their bluff by asking them who they paid royalties to when they made their copy of something like Othello, or who it was who gave them permission for slapping an art book down on a scanner to copy Boucher’s Jupiter and Callisto, they typically will give you one of the following answers:

1. That’s a trade secret or confidential.

2. Sorry, we don’t talk to pirates (or words to that effect).

3. No reply. (again, this happens about 50% of the time)

Further in support of mhendo, there has been no US case which I know of since Bridgeman where a person has lost where they have made a slavish copy of a 2-dimensional public domain work.