On 6/19/05, shimmin@uiuc.edu <shimmin@uiuc.edu> wrote:
As another poster pointed out, in the U.S., Bridgeman v. Corel says that some mechanical reproductions are not "original works" for the purpose of copyrightability; indeed, the point of creating these works is to be unoriginal. Whether PGLAF wants to stand on Bridgeman in this particular case is their own decision; as always, the only sure test as to whether something is clearable is to try and clear it.
Okay. I figured it'd be "Less Work For Greg" if I asked the list in general first. :) I'll fill out the clearances tonight. To be honest, the differences are fairly small; they've cleared out some of the screening artifacts and the colors are a little more vivid; how much of that is because they are less than 20 years old I cannot say. :)
That said, if it's not the illustrations you're interested in, but merely need to consult another edition to repair lacunae in the text you're dealing with, then just consult whatever editions you have easily at hand, and repair the text accordingly.
Unfortunately, I need both the images and the text. We're fairly close to having a complete set; once I finish up the extant books (One will have to be DP-EU only; it's from 1930) I plan to go back and produce some cleaner scans for my first few books and possibly those from the other PMs (assuming I get permission; I don't want to step on toes.) R C