?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 

Recent buys

About Nothing over 6 bucks each!

Previous Entry Recent buys Nov. 29th, 2007 @ 03:54 pm Next Entry
Leave a comment
[User Picture Icon]
From:prosfilaes
Date:November 30th, 2007 03:28 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Legally, under US law, a new copyright requires creative acts. Mere copying does not get a new copyright; the establishing case had to do with high-quality photographs of paintings, which are hard to get access to and complex to copy well, like movies. That is, I'd say it's well-established that a simple transfer gets no copyright. No matter how much work you put into making a better copy, as long as it's simply a better copy of the original, there shouldn't get a new copyright. A court suit might get somewhere, but the precedent is against them.
[User Picture Icon]
From:atomicmmonster
Date:December 2nd, 2007 02:51 am (UTC)
(Link)
Although the company that made the restored version could sue'em over the breaking of the copy-protection on their DVD...
(Leave a comment)
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com