On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Vishnu <visdaviva(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday 25 September 2014 11:19 AM, Rajesh Ranjan wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Anivar Aravind <
anivar.aravind(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Vishnu <visdaviva(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ravi,
>
> On the copyright question AFAIK... it is the manner in which a
> certain content is expressed (e.g. analyzed, compiled, paginated,
> represented, etc..) the author could claim copyright, as there is a certain
> basic amount of creative labour that went into it. So Govt. of Karnataka
> could rightfully copyright these works, which it has now released under
> CC-BY-SA 3.0. A useful thing to read in this context would be this [1].
>
As Ravi pointed 11th Century Kannada literature is already public
domain . There is no point in re-licensing it as CC-BY-SA .
Digitization does not create fresh copyright . While thanking Govt
for their efforts to make it available , please dont create fresh copyright
on it . And while looking at details, There was no point of time in which
govt of Karanataka had copyright on this content .
This effort is almost in same lines of Open access initiative of
rare public domain books by Kerala Sahitya academy happened almost same
time last year (
http://www.keralasahityaakademi.org/online_library/index.html) . They
havnt claimed any undeserving copyright on these books . SO it is better if
people involved canm correct Govt of Karanataka at this point itself
showing kerala example to avoid further ambiguities surrounding license .
~ regards
Anivar
I agree with Ravi and Anivar!
I am not an expert of licensing, but the thing that is already in
public domain, licensing the same under CC-BY-SA 3.0 is one way
limiting the public availability of the same content.
Rajesh and Anivar,
Purely from a copyright POV, it is important to recognize the idea -
expression divide. The content per-se in this case may be public domain,
but it is the expression of it that is copyrighted as I stated above.
Especially, as I understand, the copyright act in India has bare minimum
requirements for creative labour.
But I am willing to be better educated on this.
In US copyright The Bridgeman v. Corel [1]case established, and several
other courts have followed, the principle that a "slavish copy" does not
have enough originality to warrant copyright protection. Skill in making
that copy, no matter how great it is (and we all know how difficult it can
be to make a good copy), also is not by itself "original" enough to warrant
copyright protection. we only need to care about the US law in this case
because content hosted is in wikimedia servers in US . AFAIK this does not
have much conflicts with indian law too.
Licensing this under creative commons is a copyright claim of public
domain works even though spirit behind licensing is different. So my only
point is whoever working on this please correct it at this point itself by
giving proper credit (as Open access initiative of kannada old classics )
by pointing examples like kerala sahitya academy's last year efforts.
In india we anyway need to get more public institutions and libraries to
release digitalized /scanned version of PD works . So the each example we
set at this point have impacts over all these decisions. So please correct
the mistakes at this point .
If public institions who release PD books in digitalized form needs
credit for their efforts do it via press coverage or via GLAM
[1]
.
~ regards
Anivar
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit