Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Free Vaticanus download

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    At http://www.lulu.com/content/188586 you can download a free PDF version of the color 1968 Vaticanus NT. You have to register (email only) and must allow
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 29, 2005
      At
      http://www.lulu.com/content/188586

      you can download a free PDF version of the color 1968 Vaticanus NT. You have to register (email only) and must allow Cookies.
      The quality is quite good. 206 MB!
      I have no idea about the copyright issue.


      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
    • Peter Head
      ... I think we can have a reasonable idea about the copyright issue . On that web page they say: Our edition is based on a very rare work produced a long
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 29, 2005
        At 02:55 PM 11/29/05, Wieland wrote:
        >At
        >http://www.lulu.com/content/188586
        >
        >you can download a free PDF version of the color 1968 Vaticanus NT. You
        >have to register (email only) and must allow Cookies.
        >The quality is quite good. 206 MB!
        >I have no idea about the copyright issue.

        I think we can have a reasonable idea about 'the copyright issue'.
        On that web page they say:
        "Our edition is based on a very rare work produced a long time ago which
        has been out of print and out of copyright for many years."

        No doubt it has been out or print, but my understanding is that a 1968 work
        would still be copyright protected. No permissions seem to have been given.
        Can anybody clarify?

        BTW it is really useful so it would be nice to think that it was
        legal/moral to distribute copies.

        Peter






        >Best wishes
        > Wieland
        > <><
        >------------------------------------------------
        >Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        >mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        >http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        >Textcritical commentary:
        >http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >

        Peter M. Head, PhD
        Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
        Tyndale House
        36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
        566607
        Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
        http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
      • Kevin W. Woodruff
        Wieland and others: I have dealt with Mr. Aivazian before in the matter of copyright infringement. He has flagarently disregarded international copyright law
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 30, 2005
          Wieland and others:

          I have dealt with Mr. Aivazian before in the matter of
          copyright infringement. He has flagarently
          disregarded international copyright law before. If in
          fact the work is from 1968, it is still under
          copyright and therefore he cannot redistribute it in
          any form. It does not matter whether or not it is in
          print or not. The only things that are safely in
          public domain are works published before 1923. People
          do not understand that ownership of a book only allows
          you to own that copy, not the right to redistribute
          it. If a country is a signatory to the Berne
          Convention it agrees to respect the copyright laws of
          the other memeber nations. Mr. Aivazian is merely
          trying to make money off the scholarly efforts of
          others with just a scanner.

          Kevin W. Woodruff


          Prof. Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div., M.S.I.S.
          Library Director/Reference Librarian, Professor of Bible and Greek
          Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary, 1815 Union Ave.
          Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404, United States of America
          423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX)
          Cierpke@... http://pages.prodigy.net/cierpke/woodruff.htm
        • Dave Washburn
          ... [snip] ... Mr. Aivazian is merely ... Umm, that s why the pdf is offered for free, right? -- Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur Maybe I ll trade
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 30, 2005
            On Wednesday 30 November 2005 05:28, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote:
            > Wieland and others:

            [snip]
            >
            Mr. Aivazian is merely
            > trying to make money off the scholarly efforts of
            > others with just a scanner.

            Umm, that's why the pdf is offered for free, right?

            --
            Dave Washburn
            http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
            "Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."
          • xt7rt
            ... That s a very US-centric viewpoint. 1923 may be a safe cutoff in the US, but it is not safe at all in many other countries which have lifetime plus 70
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 30, 2005
              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin W. Woodruff"
              <cierpke@p...> wrote:
              >
              > Wieland and others:
              >
              > I have dealt with Mr. Aivazian before in the matter of
              > copyright infringement. He has flagarently
              > disregarded international copyright law before. If in
              > fact the work is from 1968, it is still under
              > copyright and therefore he cannot redistribute it in
              > any form. It does not matter whether or not it is in
              > print or not. The only things that are safely in
              > public domain are works published before 1923.

              That's a very US-centric viewpoint. 1923 may be a safe cutoff in the
              US, but it is not safe at all in many other countries which have
              lifetime plus 70 years. So if a newborn baby made a finger painting,
              then lived for 120 years, it would only be safe prior to 1815!

              On the other hand other countries have much smaller lengths. Sudan,
              Libya, Seychelles and Djibouti have life + 25 years, Iran and Yemen
              life + 30 years, which may put 1968 into the open period.

              Furthermore, I don't think there are clear rules about whether there
              is a legal problem in importing a copy of something from a country
              where it is out of copyright to a country where it is in copyright,
              especially where it is in electronic form.

              One example is the KJV bible which is still under copyright in the
              UK. Would you be guilty of infringement if you flew into the UK with
              your Zondervan KJV? I doubt it, but I am not a lawyer. Would you
              take care in the UK not to download a KJV bible off the internet?
              Would you wipe bibleworks off your computer before flying in? I
              doubt it.

              As for this download, few of us have the technology to know for sure
              where this domain is even located. A .com domain does NOT mean it is
              in the US. It could be in a country that does not enforce copyright
              at all. While it is perhaps unlikely it is hosted in Iran, it is not
              inconceivable it is hosted in Sealand which has no copyright laws.

              In short, I doubt very much whether anybody here can know with
              certainty whether there is any infringment in downloading something
              like this. We can have suspicians, that is all.

              > People
              > do not understand that ownership of a book only allows
              > you to own that copy, not the right to redistribute
              > it. If a country is a signatory to the Berne
              > Convention it agrees to respect the copyright laws of
              > the other memeber nations. Mr. Aivazian is merely
              > trying to make money off the scholarly efforts of
              > others with just a scanner.
              >
              > Kevin W. Woodruff
              >
              >
              > Prof. Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div., M.S.I.S.
              > Library Director/Reference Librarian, Professor of Bible and Greek
              > Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary, 1815 Union
              Ave.
              > Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404, United States of America
              > 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX)
              > Cierpke@p... http://pages.prodigy.net/cierpke/woodruff.htm
              >
            • Daniel Buck
              U.S. Copyright laws have been consistently re-written at every approach of the expiration of the extension period previously added to the original 28-year time
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 30, 2005
                U.S. Copyright laws have been consistently re-written at every
                approach of the expiration of the extension period previously added to
                the original 28-year time limit. Thus for all practical purposes, any
                work copyrighted prior to 1923 has been in public domain since 1978,
                while any work copyrighted since then is, and will continue to be into
                the forseeable future, still under copyright.

                When speaking of works copyrighted before 1978, it is the renewed
                copyright that is subject to the seemingly limitless extensions, not
                the original one. All works copyrighted before 1978 and not renewed 28
                years later are (as of 2006 at the latest) now in public domain.

                If these photos were copyrighted in 1968, then under U.S. law that
                copyright expired in 1996. Only if the copyright was renewed at that
                time would the photos fall under the extensions approved in 1978 and
                subsequently. If a work has been out of print for many years, the
                copyright holder generally forfeits the right to renew, thus allowing
                others to bring the work back into circulation at their own financial
                risk.

                Daniel Buck
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... Under US law, copyrights in all works published on or after Jan 1, 1963 are automatically renewed. There is no requirement in the statute to keep these
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 1, 2005
                  At 10:29 PM 11/30/2005 +0000, Daniel Buck wrote:
                  >If these photos were copyrighted in 1968, then under U.S. law that
                  >copyright expired in 1996. Only if the copyright was renewed at that
                  >time would the photos fall under the extensions approved in 1978 and
                  >subsequently. If a work has been out of print for many years, the
                  >copyright holder generally forfeits the right to renew, thus allowing
                  >others to bring the work back into circulation at their own financial
                  >risk.

                  Under US law, copyrights in all works published on or after
                  Jan 1, 1963 are automatically renewed. There is no requirement
                  in the statute to keep these works in print to maintain their
                  copyright. Anything published before 1963, however, is a
                  different question.

                  Stephen Carlson
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                  Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                • Harold P. Scanlin
                  In addition to the basic information given by Stephen, there are MANY websites dealing with the complexities of the issues involved. Here are a few that
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 2, 2005

                    In addition to the basic information given by Stephen, there are MANY websites dealing with the complexities of the issues involved. Here are a few that TC-listers may find helpful.

                     

                    http://www.k-state.edu/academicservices/intprop/webtutor/sld001.htm -- a very nice slide show on the basics. The statistics on length of terms reflects US law, not necessarily Berne Convention. The (in)famous “Mickey Mouse—Sonny Bono” extension enabled to preserve their copyright on Mickey Mouse for a few more years, at least in the US!

                     

                    A handy chart can be found at <http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Cochran/length_of_copyright_terms.htm>

                     

                    Harold P. Scanlin

                    41 Waldheim Park

                    Allentown, PA  18103

                    voice  610-791-9146

                    fax  610-791-0439

                    harold.scanlin@...

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen C. Carlson
                    Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:09 AM
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com; textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Free Vaticanus download

                     

                    At 10:29 PM 11/30/2005 +0000, Daniel Buck wrote:
                    >If these photos were copyrighted in 1968, then under U.S. law that
                    >copyright expired in 1996.  Only if the copyright was renewed at that
                    >time would the photos fall under the extensions approved in 1978 and
                    >subsequently.  If a work has been out of print for many years, the
                    >copyright holder generally forfeits the right to renew, thus allowing
                    >others to bring the work back into circulation at their own financial
                    >risk.

                    Under US law, copyrights in all works published on or after
                    Jan 1, 1963 are automatically renewed.  There is no requirement
                    in the statute to keep these works in print to maintain their
                    copyright.  Anything published before 1963, however, is a
                    different question.

                    Stephen Carlson
                    --
                    Stephen C. Carlson                             mailto:scarlson@...
                    Weblog:                                   http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                    Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481




                  • Wieland Willker
                    The free Vaticanus file is always available from me on request. Best wishes Wieland
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 2, 2005
                      The free Vaticanus file is always available from me on
                      request.


                      Best wishes
                      Wieland
                      <><
                      ------------------------------------------------
                      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                      Textcritical commentary:
                      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                    • Dave Washburn
                      From me as well. ... -- Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur Maybe I ll trade it for a new hat.
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 2, 2005
                        From me as well.

                        On Friday 02 December 2005 08:37, Wieland Willker wrote:
                        > The free Vaticanus file is always available from me on
                        > request.
                        >
                        >
                        > Best wishes
                        >     Wieland
                        >        <><
                        > ------------------------------------------------
                        > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                        > mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                        > Textcritical commentary:
                        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                        >
                        >
                        >  Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
                        >  
                        >  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        >  textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >  
                        >  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                        --
                        Dave Washburn
                        http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                        "Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."
                      • Roger Pearse
                        ... I have heard a suggestion, the value of which I do not know, that the statements of copyright on images of manuscripts such as these are a scam. The
                        Message 11 of 12 , Dec 3, 2005
                          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Peter Head <pmh15@c...> wrote:
                          > No doubt it has been out or print, but my understanding is
                          > that a 1968 work would still be copyright protected. No
                          > permissions seem to have been given.
                          > Can anybody clarify?
                          >
                          > BTW it is really useful so it would be nice to think that it was
                          > legal/moral to distribute copies.

                          I have heard a suggestion, the value of which I do not know, that the
                          statements of copyright on images of manuscripts such as these are a
                          scam. The reasoning is that copyright only vests in original works
                          (which I believe to be true); that the manuscripts themselves are out
                          of copyright (true I think); that no copyright can be created simply
                          by making a copy of a non-copyright item, however ingeniously you set
                          up the light and shade etc.

                          I believe that it is certainly the case that an electronic version of
                          an out of copyright text cannot thereby acquire copyright status;
                          whether this applies to pictures of manuscripts I do not know.

                          I'm not a lawyer, but I wish this could be examined.

                          All the best,

                          Roger Pearse
                        • Schmuel
                          Hi TC, ... Hi Roger, I think at very best it will be a grey area. A computer arrangement of an off-copyright item (e.g Geneva Bible) is pretty definitely
                          Message 12 of 12 , Dec 6, 2005
                            Hi TC,

                            Roger Pearse wrote:
                            >I have heard a suggestion, the value of which I do not know, that the
                            >statements of copyright on images of manuscripts such as these are a
                            >scam. The reasoning is that copyright only vests in original works
                            >(which I believe to be true); that the manuscripts themselves are out
                            >of copyright (true I think); that no copyright can be created simply
                            >by making a copy of a non-copyright item, however ingeniously you set
                            >up the light and shade etc.
                            >
                            >I believe that it is certainly the case that an electronic version of
                            >an out of copyright text cannot thereby acquire copyright status;
                            >whether this applies to pictures of manuscripts I do not know.
                            >
                            >I'm not a lawyer, but I wish this could be examined.

                            Hi Roger, I think at very best it will be a grey area. A computer arrangement of an
                            off-copyright item (e.g Geneva Bible) is pretty definitely copyrightable, as it includes
                            the value-added independent value-added commercial enterprise of file formatting,
                            interface, and other elements (perhaps even the labor to scan/keypuch in). Somebody
                            else can do their own scanning and formatting, but they can't just legally lift
                            yours and take it and put it in their software package. Which makes sense.

                            And a crafty computer guy will put some little teensy identification markers, just like
                            a map-maker turns a tiny little street the wrong way to catch the unauthorized copy.
                            Maybe a couple of commas will be in a different place than the real text.

                            All that seems pretty similar to a picture arrangement. And of course picture folks
                            do similar pseudo-watermarking for the same purpose. The problem is that some
                            libraries and such have used their monopolization of a text to only allow their
                            favored photographer, (or whatever reproduction technique is involved) thus making
                            the text inaccessible, or at an inflated cost. If I remember there is some movement
                            to try to rectify this situation overall, legal pressure, conventions, whatever. Or maybe
                            folks just hoped there would be such movement.

                            To a large extent copyright is a commercial right, not just a text right, where layout
                            and formatting are definitely part of the final product and often sufficient for copyright.

                            Like you, I am not a lawyer, but when we were discussing Qimron vs. BAR
                            (the DSS case) I did a little research.

                            Also copyright varies country to country. In the Qimron case, he sued in Israel and
                            definitely took advantage of home court to win a victory, one that had some copyright
                            experts cringing in legal anguish.

                            Shalom,
                            Steven Avery
                            Queens, NY
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.