Comment on Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this to youparentComments−ig116yScanning a public domain work doesn't give you copyright over it. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.−10ren16y"...which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_....−jerf16yGoogle was probably giving a limited license on the collection copyright, which is much less protective than "normal" copyright.It's harder to google for that term than many other copyright terms, but here it is from the horse's mouth: http://www.sacred-texts.com/sect103.htmGoogle does have a copyright on the collection as a whole, even as they do not gain any extra rights on the underlying public domain material. It's sort of weird, but it does make sense.
Comments
Scanning a public domain work doesn't give you copyright over it. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
"...which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_....
Google was probably giving a limited license on the collection copyright, which is much less protective than "normal" copyright.
It's harder to google for that term than many other copyright terms, but here it is from the horse's mouth: http://www.sacred-texts.com/sect103.htm
Google does have a copyright on the collection as a whole, even as they do not gain any extra rights on the underlying public domain material. It's sort of weird, but it does make sense.