I guess we don't
I guess we don't
And you are arguing that that having a new copyright on those photographs of a public domain image is a Good Thing?
I wasn't arguing either way, actually. Just stating that in the US those photos would not be copyrighted.
"The case cited only has to do with photos of public domain images."
What year were those drawings, um, drawn in? Yes, no matter where in the world you are, those drawings are public domain. And if you were in America then any photo/scan of those images would also be public domain.
We don't copyright ALL photos. Only those which have some "original" creativity to them (the quote around original because that is what the law says).
"if you took your own photo of them, you would have the copyright to it"
Wrong (In the US).
In the US we don't give copyright for simply making a faithful reproduction of anything. You didn't add any new creative element by taking a photograph of a piece of paper. This is why Google does not hold a copyright on the scans of public domain works. (but they do limit their use based on Contracts/TOS, which is fine, you can sign away your rights in a contract)
For the court case which spells this out see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
Now, in the UK, what you said is probably correct. They are, in my opinion, wrongly assigning copyright to people based on "sweat of the brow" work, not creativity.
They are "encouraging the use of other clients" by not providing an option for Linux. I think you should have said they are "requiring the use of other clients if you want an Open Source solution."
So, they are better because they're offering is closed source and thus encouraging people to use another client?
It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly