[Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

Tue Oct 17 15:07:11 UTC 2006

On 10/17/06, Roger Luethi <collector at hellgate.ch> wrote:
[snip]
> I don't think that is their official position, because the idea that works
> written hundreds of years ago are still under copyright is entirely and
> obviously without merit (not counting special cases like Crown copyright).

Those who have experienced the cost, time, and creativity which goes
into the restoring and digitizing required for a high quality
reproduction do not find this position shocking.

Nor is it weakly established.  Bridgeman v. Corel was a surprising
outcome considering established practices, and I expect future cases
will substantially restrain the expansive application of that ruling.