Re: [gutvol-d] Derivative works, or, what is copyrightable?

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. 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.