[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Fair enough. In the reproduction of simple derivative works, as from the King James Bible, without enough original, creative material for copyright protection, your format and layout itself are not copyrightable.

Notice that "compilation or arrangement" is eligible for copyright protection, even of derivative works, and that is an area that overlaps layout and format.

http://www.geocities.com/feelthewind...copyright.html
If the underlying work is in the public domain, a copyright in the derivative or collective work does not render the underlying work protectable. Thus, the copyright in a derivative or collective work merely protects against copying or otherwise infringing the particular compilation or arrangement of a collective work, or the original contribution contained in the derivative work.

Notice that in the examples by Brandon from the Copyright Office : "Best Short Stories of 2006..." involves original authorship for deciding on and presenting the stories, even though each individual work is derivative. Similarly, your unique collection of "the neatest public domain commentaries and maps and notes" could qualify for similar compilation and arrangement protection. You have no rights to the texts themselves yet rights can be generated by your compilation, even if you added no fundamental creative commentary. And in such a case your protection is only to your compilation and arrangement and intro and such, not the source texts. (A lot of people would take a "who cares" approach if it were anything less that a major publisher concerned with Chinese or Korean knock-off publishing.)

When Thomas Nelson puts together a little paperback KJB they put the earlier distinct copyright notices on their Concordance (1968) and the Gospel Harmony (1962) and the maps (1984,83). Yet also the Bible edition as a whole, in front of the King James Bible text (1970 in one case,, 1972 in another) is given a copyright, and I believe that is likely valid. Representing the particular compilation and arrangement of Bible text, Gospel Harmony, maps and concordance. How the copyright can be earlier than some of the components is a bit of a puzzle, perhaps because in an earlier edition they used other maps and such and the © is meant for their 'Life & Styles' editions.

(We all understand that putting in a copyright notice does not mean that it is necessarily a valid copyright. As an example, I'm sure somebody who wanted to do a very similar work to the KJB/21 Millenium Bible "update" could challenge their copyright of original material of a largely KJB text if Douel took them to court. Douel would be very reluctant to bring a case for that reason. As we know, all such editions have large flaws.)

As a side-issue I wonder also what are the Douel publishing rights within UK, whether that issue could come up. I also wonder if there is defacto prevention of KJB publishing by the non-authorized in UK.

Anyway, all this is why compilation and arrangement overlaps layout.

And note: when there is a copyright for new work, that copyright will often include layout and format aspects as part of their copyright protection. That was part of my original point.

Note: if you apply a unique computer format the format is more than a minor change or addition, it is fundamental, and should be protected. That is why you cannot simply lift and present a proprietary computer-formatted text as "fair use" or "public domain" unless the format itself is public. And that is why there is an attempt to have an open source alternative to .gif for pics. .txt is open, Brandon would probably know the details on .pdf I think it is freely distributable.

Incidentally, Yoko Ono is pursuing a copyright case for the song that goes..

"Imagine no possessions ..."

As noted on this good blog.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/expel...copyrightable/
Is “Imagine” Even Copyrightable? - William Dembski

Shalom,
Steven