3 ms·
Not necessarily. The old article ITSELF is public domain, the work, so to speak. The file you downloaded might have a new copyright because someone worked reall
by aw3c2 14y ago
Not necessarily. The old article ITSELF is public domain, the work, so to speak. The file you downloaded might have a new copyright because someone worked really hard to create it. Check the license and everything before jumping to conclusions.
- jlgreco 14y agoEffort required to create something does not mean that something is necessarily copyrighted if there was no creative process involved. This is why databases are not copyright-able in the US. Is scanning old journals a creative process? Maybe there is some case law that says so, but until I see that, I am inclined to say no, and everything that I can find agrees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Reproductions_of_public_domain_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Reprod... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_....
- officemonkey 14y agoI'll accept the concept of "new copyright" for something transformative, I do not accept it for something akin to xeroxing. If JSTOR has a different opinion, they can see me in court.
- officemonkey 14y agoOh, BTW, I looked at the JSTOR license for "Early Content Journals" and I'm confident that I am within the spirit and letter of their TOS. http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp#TC2 http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp#TC2