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 thatUnder US law, copyrights in all works published on or after
>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
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
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
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
- From me as well.
On Friday 02 December 2005 08:37, Wieland Willker wrote:
> The free Vaticanus file is always available from me on
> Best wishes
> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
> Textcritical commentary:
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
"Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."
- --- In email@example.com, Peter Head <pmh15@c...> wrote:
> No doubt it has been out or print, but my understanding isI have heard a suggestion, the value of which I do not know, that the
> 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.
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,
- Hi TC,
Roger Pearse wrote:
>I have heard a suggestion, the value of which I do not know, that theHi Roger, I think at very best it will be a grey area. A computer arrangement of an
>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.
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.