<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:14pt"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 14pt;"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">>Even in the UK, which follows the "sweat of the brow" principle (i.e. copyright<br>>can be gained through effort even without creativity), such effort needs to<br>>be significant.<br><br>Sorry I meant to add at the end of my previous email - what I was saying is that tracing of satellite
imagery can be significantly non-negligible, and often needs to be quite creative too. You try telling the difference between a lake and the shadow of a cloud on a very dark satellite image for example! Also, you have to make judgements as to where a lake or river ends and the land starts - it's not a simple case of where this is water, as that depends on the season, amount of rain and other factors.<br><br>>Claiming copyright over negligible works is what the RIAA, and those bunch<br>>of tards who are trying to stop the Kindle's text-to-speech feature, do.<br>>They are rightly vilified for it by people like us. We should be on the side<br>>of the angels, and not try and claim rights where such rights shouldn't and<br>>don't exist.<br><br>Yes I agree
totally with this, I think in this example a text-to-speech feature should be considered fair use (not to mention that denying this use might fall foul of anti-discrimination laws in some jurisdictions). However, I'm aware that, in the UK at least, fair use is not a well-defined concept legally.<br><br>Donald<br></div></div></div><br>
</body></html>