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

RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Free Vaticanus download

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Dec 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment

      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 2 of 12 , Dec 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 12 , Dec 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 12 , Dec 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 12 , Dec 6, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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.