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

Re: [textualcriticism] Copyright Codex Vaticanus

Expand Messages
  • Jovial
    I suspect it varies from country to country as to what the copyright period is for something like this. But if the author isn t claiming any copyright and
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      
      I suspect it varies from country to country as to what the copyright period is for something like this.  But if the author isn't claiming any copyright and your own country doesn't protect further, then there's nothing to worry about within your own country.  Muddy situation though to some degree, huh?
       
      Joe
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:47 AM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Copyright Codex Vaticanus

      I am absolutely no expert but my understanding is this: In Germany normally a copyright protected work is going into the public domain after 70 years. For photos this is 50 years. But for raw photos or simple reproductions of a public domain original (artwork etc.) there is no copyright at all.
      I take it that Codex Vaticanus is a public domain work.
      Perhaps nit-picking people could claim that the chapter/verse notations below the Codex are an original scholarly contribution and copyrightable.

      The author (T. Aivazian) says that there is a 30 year copyright protection for a work like this and so it's
      public domain now.

      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



    • Wieland Willker
      ... This generalization is certainly not correct. One has to differentiate if a work is simply a reproduction or photos or a scholarly production. Note my
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 30, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        > If in fact the work is from 1968, it is still under copyright


        This generalization is certainly not correct. One has to differentiate if a work is simply a reproduction or photos or a scholarly production. Note my previous post.


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


        He is not making money. He is selling the things at production cost. At least he told me so. There are better ways to make money. Scanning works with 100s of pages is very time consuming.
        I think he is doing us all a service.
        I don't think we need a lengthy discussion about this. If you have something knowledgeable to say about the copyright of this particular work, feel free to do so.

        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
      • Harold P. Scanlin
        Before my retirement a few years ago, I worked for the Unite Bible Societies in the area of our scholarly editions and frequently dealt with related copyright
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 30, 2005
        • 0 Attachment

          Before my retirement a few years ago, I worked for the Unite Bible Societies in the area of our scholarly editions and frequently dealt with related copyright issues. I’m certainly no lawyer, but I can offer a few comments from my experience.

           

          Is it certain that the download version is taken from the 1965 publication? I no longer have ready access to this edition.

           

          Is it possible that the photographs have been taken from the Milan 1904-07 facsimile edition? Again, I don’t have access to this edition to make any comparisons.

           

          The length of copyright is different for individuals (life + x years after death) and for corporations (a fixed length, usually 70 years).

           

          If the photographs are from the 1965 edition they are still under copyright protection. However, this protection does not necessarily apply to the underlying intellectual property, i.e. the compositions of Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc., nor the scribe(s) who made the copy, which included a certain amount of editorial intervention. This is a complex and critical point which entered into the crux of the 4QMMT case. Nimmer, a leading expert on US copyright, argues in favor of Shanks against Qimron, saying that the “copyright holder” of 4QMMT is the original author and Qimron is entitled to copyright only the mistakes he may have made in his transcription/reconstruction.  However, even if Nimmer’s argument would prevail if a similar case was brought in the US it would not invalidate the Israeli ruling.

           

          The Berne Convention sets relatively high standards for all signatory countries, but this does not prevent individual countries from extending copyright length beyond Berne. (The US has some longer terms.) Virtually all “developed” countries are signatories to Berne. Even if some “developing” countries have shorter terms, legal commerce in these countries cannot apply to commerce (e.g. exports) involving Berne countries.

           

          The matter of editorial intervention and its copyrightability is an especially complex issue. Clearly, Martini’s introduction to the 1965 Vaticanus facsimile is subject to copyright control. If the Vatican did fresh photos in the 1960s, which I believe they did, they are eligible for copyright, too. If there was any editorial intervention, in this case the trivial matter of labeling the book-chapter-verse notations. For critical editions, including the construction of an eclectic text, a supporting cortical apparatus, and/or a transcription for a diplomatic edition, copyright protection can generally be supported. On the other hand, I too have heard about the special 30 year rule in German copyright law which is reported to set the lower term for modern (critical) editions of ancient works. I have never been able to verify or disprove this special German law. I wonder if anybody on this list can clarify this.

           

          If this isn’t confusing enough, the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act has added several more levels of complexity, especially in relation to electronic “texts.”

           

          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 Wieland Willker
          Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:32 AM
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Copyright Codex Vaticanus

           

          > If in fact the work is from 1968, it is still under copyright


          This generalization is certainly not correct. One has to differentiate if a work is simply a reproduction or photos or a scholarly production. Note my previous post.


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


          He is not making money. He is selling the things at production cost. At least he told me so. There are better ways to make money. Scanning works with 100s of pages is very time consuming.
          I think he is doing us all a service.
          I don't think we need a lengthy discussion about this. If you have something knowledgeable to say about the copyright of this particular work, feel free to do so.

          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




        • Kevin W. Woodruff
          Harold: The fact that the scans are in color argue against if being the 1904-1907 edition which are not in color. It seems to be the 1965 edition. Ta Hiera
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 30, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Harold:

            The fact that the scans are in color argue against if
            being the 1904-1907 edition which are not in color. It
            seems to be the 1965 edition.

            Ta Hiera Biblia :
            Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 (Codex B) phototypice
            expressus iussu Pauli PP VI Pontificis Maximi : Hē
            Kaine Diatheke
            Corp Author(s): Biblioteca apostolica vaticana.
            Publication: In Civitate Vaticana : Opera Curatorum
            Bibliothecae Vaticanae, Phototypice expressum in
            aedibus Hamilcaris Pizzi
            1965

            I have contacted the Vatican Library and should have
            definitive answer from them soon


            Kevin


            --- "Harold P. Scanlin" <harold.scanlin@...>
            wrote:

            > Before my retirement a few years ago, I worked for
            > the Unite Bible Societies
            > in the area of our scholarly editions and frequently
            > dealt with related
            > copyright issues. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I can
            > offer a few comments
            > from my experience.
            >
            >
            >
            > Is it certain that the download version is taken
            > from the 1965 publication?
            > I no longer have ready access to this edition.
            >
            >
            >
            > Is it possible that the photographs have been taken
            > from the Milan 1904-07
            > facsimile edition? Again, I don't have access to
            > this edition to make any
            > comparisons.
            >
            >
            >
            > The length of copyright is different for individuals
            > (life + x years after
            > death) and for corporations (a fixed length, usually
            > 70 years).
            >
            >
            >
            > If the photographs are from the 1965 edition they
            > are still under copyright
            > protection. However, this protection does not
            > necessarily apply to the
            > underlying intellectual property, i.e. the
            > compositions of Matthew, Luke,
            > Paul, etc., nor the scribe(s) who made the copy,
            > which included a certain
            > amount of editorial intervention. This is a complex
            > and critical point which
            > entered into the crux of the 4QMMT case. Nimmer, a
            > leading expert on US
            > copyright, argues in favor of Shanks against Qimron,
            > saying that the
            > "copyright holder" of 4QMMT is the original author
            > and Qimron is entitled to
            > copyright only the mistakes he may have made in his
            > transcription/reconstruction. However, even if
            > Nimmer's argument would
            > prevail if a similar case was brought in the US it
            > would not invalidate the
            > Israeli ruling.
            >
            >
            >
            > The Berne Convention sets relatively high standards
            > for all signatory
            > countries, but this does not prevent individual
            > countries from extending
            > copyright length beyond Berne. (The US has some
            > longer terms.) Virtually all
            > "developed" countries are signatories to Berne. Even
            > if some "developing"
            > countries have shorter terms, legal commerce in
            > these countries cannot apply
            > to commerce (e.g. exports) involving Berne
            > countries.
            >
            >
            >
            > The matter of editorial intervention and its
            > copyrightability is an
            > especially complex issue. Clearly, Martini's
            > introduction to the 1965
            > Vaticanus facsimile is subject to copyright control.
            > If the Vatican did
            > fresh photos in the 1960s, which I believe they did,
            > they are eligible for
            > copyright, too. If there was any editorial
            > intervention, in this case the
            > trivial matter of labeling the book-chapter-verse
            > notations. For critical
            > editions, including the construction of an eclectic
            > text, a supporting
            > cortical apparatus, and/or a transcription for a
            > diplomatic edition,
            > copyright protection can generally be supported. On
            > the other hand, I too
            > have heard about the special 30 year rule in German
            > copyright law which is
            > reported to set the lower term for modern (critical)
            > editions of ancient
            > works. I have never been able to verify or disprove
            > this special German law.
            > I wonder if anybody on this list can clarify this.
            >
            >
            >
            > If this isn't confusing enough, the US Digital
            > Millennium Copyright Act has
            > added several more levels of complexity, especially
            > in relation to
            > electronic "texts."
            >
            >
            >
            > Harold P. Scanlin
            >
            > 41 Waldheim Park
            >
            > Allentown, PA 18103
            >
            > voice 610-791-9146
            >
            > fax 610-791-0439
            >
            > <mailto:harold.scanlin@...>
            > harold.scanlin@...
            >
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            > [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
            > Of Wieland Willker
            > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:32 AM
            > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Copyright Codex
            > Vaticanus
            >
            >
            >
            > > If in fact the work is from 1968, it is still
            > under copyright
            >
            >
            > This generalization is certainly not correct. One
            > has to differentiate if a
            > work is simply a reproduction or photos or a
            > scholarly production. Note my
            > previous post.
            >
            >
            > > Mr. Aivazian is merely trying to make money off
            > the
            > > scholarly efforts of others with just a scanner.
            >
            >
            > He is not making money. He is selling the things at
            > production cost. At
            > least he told me so. There are better ways to make
            > money. Scanning works
            > with 100s of pages is very time consuming.
            > I think he is doing us all a service.
            > I don't think we need a lengthy discussion about
            > this. If you have something
            > knowledgeable to say about the copyright of this
            > particular work, feel free
            > to do so.
            >
            > 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
            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism> "
            > on the web.
            >
            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
            >
            >
            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
            > Yahoo! Terms of
            > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.
            >
            >
            >
            > _____
            >
            >


            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
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.