Copyright and violation (sorry) ( was [Sca-cooks] COPYINGThe secrets of the . . . )

[johnna holloway]

There are however single  or sole surviving copies of works that are not
available for transcription. This is the equivalent of owning a painting
or artwork. These works often carry additional warnings on the microfilm
for example that they cannot be used in any published form or for
research without permission being obtained from the owner. In as much as
the only place to obtain a copy of this work is from that one copy, one
has to comply or risk penalities.

Johnna Holloway  Johnnae llyn Lewis

----- Original Message -----
> From: <jenne at fiedlerfamily.net>
>
> > Distributing the text (rather than the formatted files) is not a
> violation
> > of copyright. It is only when you distribute someone else's work
> (and
> > their work is the effort required to photograph & digitize the
> material),
> > that you run into trouble. :)

Nick Sasso wrote:>
> > This is one of the oft lost or misunderstood pieces in dicussing
> copyrights amongst scholars.  For example, Scully's translations and
> interpretations are copyrighted, BUT the actual text that he has
> transcribed is not protected.  The original text, unmodified is not his
> to copyright.  ANY other part that he adds, translates or describes is
> his material to protect.