[OpenGLAM] FW: Wellcome (Laurel L. Russwurm)

Fri Jan 31 07:18:39 UTC 2014

On 30/01/14 10:29 PM, Fae wrote:
> 
> On 29 Jan 2014 07:18, "Rob Myers" <rob at robmyers.org
> <mailto:rob at robmyers.org>> wrote:
> ...
>> Sadly it has been upheld by courts in the UK:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#UK_copyright_law
> 
> No, neither the Wikipedia page, nor the sources say that.

Not regarding images, no, but the wikipedia page says:

"For over a hundred years, English courts have held that a significant
expenditure of labour is sufficient."

And in describing its first example says:

"The court held that the reporters were authors of the published speech,
and, as such, owned a copyright in the published speeches, because of
the considerable skill, labour, and judgement they exercised."

There's a page on that example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_v_Lane

"Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539, was a judgement of the House of Lords on
the question of Authorship under the Copyright Act 1842. It has come to
be recognised as a seminal case on the notion of originality in
copyright law and has been upheld as an early example of the sweat of
the brow doctrine.[1]"

- Rob.