Hi all;
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel Museum. Congratulations.
By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
Regards, emijrp
[1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/ [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg
The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the originals...
On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:
Hi all;
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel Museum. Congratulations.
By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
Regards, emijrp
[1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/ [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
2011/9/26 Neil Babbage neil@thebabbages.com
The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the originals...
On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:
Hi all;
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
Israel
Museum. Congratulations.
By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
Regards, emijrp
[1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/ [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As the British Museum.
Hehehehe.
--Sarah (Stierch)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
2011/9/26 Neil Babbage neil@thebabbages.com
The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the originals...
On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:
Hi all;
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
Israel
Museum. Congratulations.
By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
Regards, emijrp
[1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/ [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ASK THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
Damn. Joke fail.
-Sarah
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
As the British Museum.
Hehehehe.
--Sarah (Stierch)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
2011/9/26 Neil Babbage neil@thebabbages.com
The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the originals...
On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:
Hi all;
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
Israel
Museum. Congratulations.
By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
Regards, emijrp
[1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/ [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
ASK THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
Damn. Joke fail.
-Sarah
Emijrp has a valid point.
We routinely dismiss this kind of bogus claims of copyright from museums
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other countries.
Claiming copyright is not the same as owning copyright.
Ray
2011/9/26 Neil Babbageneil@thebabbages.com
The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the originals...
On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:
Hi all;
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
Israel
Museum. Congratulations.
By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
Regards, emijrp
[1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/ [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other countries.
It's not even binding on other districts within the US.
OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for claiming copyright.
2011/9/27 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other
countries.
It's not even binding on other districts within the US.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for claiming copyright.
Looks like you don't know the meaning of "common" word.
I also know how to paste cool links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_and_copyright_issues
2011/9/27 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for claiming copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Wikimedia Israel and I met with the Israel Museum in the days immediately following Wikimania. The specific purpose of that event was to set up a 'Wikipedian in Residence' position at their research centre, starting with a project to create articles about Israeli artists in English and Hebrew Wikipedias. This is described in the August "This Month in GLAM" report: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/August_2011/Contents/Isra...
Unsurprisingly, when we were giving our introduction presentation about what Wikimedia does, what we stand for and how we operate, the issue of Copyright-in-scans-of-Public-Domain-work was raised. Quite directly actually. We informed the museum on no uncertain terms that Wikimedia's policy is to follow the Bridgeman v. Corel precedent. They responded that it is standard practice of the museum industry worldwide to claim copyright in scans and that Bridgeman is not a precedent in Israel. All of which is true and correct.
Which brings us back to the same position we have with every museum that makes these copyright claims. We must stand by our principles and provide our readers with access to digitised versions of public-domain cultural heritage (such as the dead sea scrolls) when we have access to them. The museums must realise this is a key point of both principle and law for us. However, we must also try to politely stand by these principles in a way that is not deliberately antagonistic towards the museum - especially towards museums that are willing to work with us like the Israel Museum is. We are on the same side when it comes to sharing knowledge and public education, we just go about it in different ways.
We cannot expect museums to arrive at free-culture-compliant policies in one day. It will take time to make them comfortable with it. In the mean time it is our duty to demonstrate the value and advantages of sharing their content whilst (politely but firmly) criticising the current policies. Maybe one day our productive relationship with the Israel Museum will eventuate in them *inviting* us to have an editing-day dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls and will proactively *share* their own multimedia. Who knows? In the mean time, if you would like to get involved with the Israel Museum project you can read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/IMJ
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
We can have our fresh and promising Wikimedian-in-Residence there raise the issue with museum staff. This news took us by surprise. Apparently, the Google-IMJ project is quite a bit more than simple scanning of the material, it involves more hypertextual contextual work.
Please, a more friendly and less sarcastic attitude will certainly help here. The museum has been showing a great deal of good faith in its GLAM cooperation with us, and doesn't deserve this kind of attitude.
We certainly don't want to run into a collision course with the Museum over this thing. The Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps the museum's most important item on display, and a world-class cultural heritage item. Which means that as much as it matters to us, it will matter greatly to the museum, this is not some secondary work of art which they might turn a blind eye to copyright infringement on. We (WMIL) will look into the matter.
Harel Cain Secretary, Wikimedia Israel
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 02:40, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Israel and I met with the Israel Museum in the days immediately following Wikimania. The specific purpose of that event was to set up a 'Wikipedian in Residence' position at their research centre, starting with a project to create articles about Israeli artists in English and Hebrew Wikipedias. This is described in the August "This Month in GLAM" report: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/August_2011/Contents/Isra...
Unsurprisingly, when we were giving our introduction presentation about what Wikimedia does, what we stand for and how we operate, the issue of Copyright-in-scans-of-Public-Domain-work was raised. Quite directly actually. We informed the museum on no uncertain terms that Wikimedia's policy is to follow the Bridgeman v. Corel precedent. They responded that it is standard practice of the museum industry worldwide to claim copyright in scans and that Bridgeman is not a precedent in Israel. All of which is true and correct.
Which brings us back to the same position we have with every museum that makes these copyright claims. We must stand by our principles and provide our readers with access to digitised versions of public-domain cultural heritage (such as the dead sea scrolls) when we have access to them. The museums must realise this is a key point of both principle and law for us. However, we must also try to politely stand by these principles in a way that is not deliberately antagonistic towards the museum - especially towards museums that are willing to work with us like the Israel Museum is. We are on the same side when it comes to sharing knowledge and public education, we just go about it in different ways.
We cannot expect museums to arrive at free-culture-compliant policies in one day. It will take time to make them comfortable with it. In the mean time it is our duty to demonstrate the value and advantages of sharing their content whilst (politely but firmly) criticising the current policies. Maybe one day our productive relationship with the Israel Museum will eventuate in them *inviting* us to have an editing-day dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls and will proactively *share* their own multimedia. Who knows? In the mean time, if you would like to get involved with the Israel Museum project you can read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/IMJ
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
There's an important point in what you say, though it is difficult to avoid sarcasm when feeling a Google spider creeping up one's back.
In many of these cases there is the legal analysis and there is the pragmatic analysis They do not bear identical results. The legal analysis could conceivably lead us to a serious criticism of the Israel Museum's protectivism.
In a pragmatic analysis my first piece of enlightenment would be with the fact that I don't know a word of Hebrew. If that is the case, what am I doing copying many many pages of Hebrew texts? If there is a copyright fight over this materiel would it not be better to leave that fight to those who are interested in and understand the texts? That leaves only a rare few people in a position to pursue the argument. And those few will still have an opportunity to come to an understanding with the IMJ. The NPG and JSTOR made targets of themselves by taking a stupid position publicly. We also have individuals who allow themselves to be overcome by an excess of indignation. In dealing with them it's probably good if IMJ is made aware that these individuals are a minority.
Ray
On 09/26/11 9:26 PM, Harel Cain wrote:
We can have our fresh and promising Wikimedian-in-Residence there raise the issue with museum staff. This news took us by surprise. Apparently, the Google-IMJ project is quite a bit more than simple scanning of the material, it involves more hypertextual contextual work.
Please, a more friendly and less sarcastic attitude will certainly help here. The museum has been showing a great deal of good faith in its GLAM cooperation with us, and doesn't deserve this kind of attitude.
We certainly don't want to run into a collision course with the Museum over this thing. The Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps the museum's most important item on display, and a world-class cultural heritage item. Which means that as much as it matters to us, it will matter greatly to the museum, this is not some secondary work of art which they might turn a blind eye to copyright infringement on. We (WMIL) will look into the matter.
Harel Cain Secretary, Wikimedia Israel
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 02:40, Liam Wyattliamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Israel and I met with the Israel Museum in the days immediately following Wikimania. The specific purpose of that event was to set up a 'Wikipedian in Residence' position at their research centre, starting with a project to create articles about Israeli artists in English and Hebrew Wikipedias. This is described in the August "This Month in GLAM" report: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/August_2011/Contents/Isra...
Unsurprisingly, when we were giving our introduction presentation about what Wikimedia does, what we stand for and how we operate, the issue of Copyright-in-scans-of-Public-Domain-work was raised. Quite directly actually. We informed the museum on no uncertain terms that Wikimedia's policy is to follow the Bridgeman v. Corel precedent. They responded that it is standard practice of the museum industry worldwide to claim copyright in scans and that Bridgeman is not a precedent in Israel. All of which is true and correct.
Which brings us back to the same position we have with every museum that makes these copyright claims. We must stand by our principles and provide our readers with access to digitised versions of public-domain cultural heritage (such as the dead sea scrolls) when we have access to them. The museums must realise this is a key point of both principle and law for us. However, we must also try to politely stand by these principles in a way that is not deliberately antagonistic towards the museum - especially towards museums that are willing to work with us like the Israel Museum is. We are on the same side when it comes to sharing knowledge and public education, we just go about it in different ways.
We cannot expect museums to arrive at free-culture-compliant policies in one day. It will take time to make them comfortable with it. In the mean time it is our duty to demonstrate the value and advantages of sharing their content whilst (politely but firmly) criticising the current policies. Maybe one day our productive relationship with the Israel Museum will eventuate in them *inviting* us to have an editing-day dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls and will proactively *share* their own multimedia. Who knows? In the mean time, if you would like to get involved with the Israel Museum project you can read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/IMJ
-Liam
2011/9/27 Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com:
We can have our fresh and promising Wikimedian-in-Residence there raise the issue with museum staff. This news took us by surprise. Apparently, the Google-IMJ project is quite a bit more than simple scanning of the material, it involves more hypertextual contextual work.
Please, a more friendly and less sarcastic attitude will certainly help here. The museum has been showing a great deal of good faith in its GLAM cooperation with us, and doesn't deserve this kind of attitude.
We certainly don't want to run into a collision course with the Museum over this thing. The Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps the museum's most important item on display, and a world-class cultural heritage item. Which means that as much as it matters to us, it will matter greatly to the museum, this is not some secondary work of art which they might turn a blind eye to copyright infringement on. We (WMIL) will look into the matter.
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiendili@gmail.com wrote:
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US.
Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers.
WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling the rest of the world that the work is public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose without permission, is another.
On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiendili@gmail.com wrote:
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US.
Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers.
WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling the rest of the world that the work is public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose without permission, is another.
The people who really feel offended by the Israel Museum's claim would do best to accept responsibility for their claims. Given the nature of the work there is perhaps a little more skill to these scans than was the case for NPG portraits. I don't know how a court decision would turn out. I am certainly not confident enough to pursue this myself, nor would I want to do it for material I don't understand.
Anyone who simply feels that these scans should be freely available can simply put them up on his own site in whatever country he wants, and wait for the lawsuit to happen or not happen. There are some areas where I feel that Wikimedia policies about copyright are wrong, and even paranoid, but I would be wrong to insist that any WMF project host them unless I am ready to defend a legal action against a site that I fully own and control. That's what being responsible is about.
Ray
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiendili@gmail.com wrote:
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US.
Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers.
WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling the rest of the world that the work is public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose without permission, is another.
The people who really feel offended by the Israel Museum's claim would do best to accept responsibility for their claims. Given the nature of the work there is perhaps a little more skill to these scans than was the case for NPG portraits. I don't know how a court decision would turn out. I am certainly not confident enough to pursue this myself, nor would I want to do it for material I don't understand.
Anyone who simply feels that these scans should be freely available can simply put them up on his own site in whatever country he wants, and wait for the lawsuit to happen or not happen. There are some areas where I feel that Wikimedia policies about copyright are wrong, and even paranoid, but I would be wrong to insist that any WMF project host them unless I am ready to defend a legal action against a site that I fully own and control. That's what being responsible is about.
I don't see a problem with hosting them on projects which allow non-free material, with a tag at the least saying that The Israel Museum claims copyright. The museum doesn't seem to mind copying/distribution "for research or private study". But the list of projects which allow non-free material doesn't include the most relevant project - wikisource.
The "free content only" rule is meant to protect third parties, not WMF.
But note here that I'm only talking about the images, not the text. The photographs do not, and are not meant to, depict the "image" which was created on the scrolls hundreds of years ago. They are meant to, and do, depict the scrolls as they existed at the time the photos were taken. This, I believe, is a major distinction between the NPG portraits and this one.
The scrolls themselves were created to depict text, not an image, and there is there seems to be absolutely no dispute at all that the *text* of the scrolls (to the extent it can be determined) is public domain.
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the brow" and requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2]
The Israeli Supreme Court did declare that a transcription of the Dead Sea Scrolls was copyrightable, but mostly because a large percentage of the source material was lost or damaged and required educated guesswork to fill in the gaps. If we were doing our own guesswork based on photographs of the fragments, I think it would be reasonable to say that we are the sole copyright holders of such a transcription.
Ryan Kaldari
1. Tempska, Urzula (2002). "'Originality' After the Dead Sea Scrolls Decision: Implications for the American Law of Copyright". /Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review/ *6* (1): 132.
2. Elkin-Koren, Niva (2001). "Of Scientific Claims and Proprietary Rights: Lessons from the Dead Sea Scrolls", /Houston Law Review/ *38* (2): 458, 460.
On 10/3/11 6:16 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiendili@gmail.com wrote:
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US.
Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers.
WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling the rest of the world that the work is public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose without permission, is another.
The people who really feel offended by the Israel Museum's claim would do best to accept responsibility for their claims. Given the nature of the work there is perhaps a little more skill to these scans than was the case for NPG portraits. I don't know how a court decision would turn out. I am certainly not confident enough to pursue this myself, nor would I want to do it for material I don't understand.
Anyone who simply feels that these scans should be freely available can simply put them up on his own site in whatever country he wants, and wait for the lawsuit to happen or not happen. There are some areas where I feel that Wikimedia policies about copyright are wrong, and even paranoid, but I would be wrong to insist that any WMF project host them unless I am ready to defend a legal action against a site that I fully own and control. That's what being responsible is about.
I don't see a problem with hosting them on projects which allow non-free material, with a tag at the least saying that The Israel Museum claims copyright. The museum doesn't seem to mind copying/distribution "for research or private study". But the list of projects which allow non-free material doesn't include the most relevant project - wikisource.
The "free content only" rule is meant to protect third parties, not WMF.
But note here that I'm only talking about the images, not the text. The photographs do not, and are not meant to, depict the "image" which was created on the scrolls hundreds of years ago. They are meant to, and do, depict the scrolls as they existed at the time the photos were taken. This, I believe, is a major distinction between the NPG portraits and this one.
The scrolls themselves were created to depict text, not an image, and there is there seems to be absolutely no dispute at all that the *text* of the scrolls (to the extent it can be determined) is public domain.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/03/11 11:34 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the brow" and requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2]
Then it is a question of fact. Do these images involve that minimal degree of originality? Do we need to publish the scans? How important is a good relationship with the museum?
The Israeli Supreme Court did declare that a transcription of the Dead Sea Scrolls was copyrightable, but mostly because a large percentage of the source material was lost or damaged and required educated guesswork to fill in the gaps. If we were doing our own guesswork based on photographs of the fragments, I think it would be reasonable to say that we are the sole copyright holders of such a transcription.
Absolutely! It still takes someone with an understanding of the material to do that kind of work. Without that, this question is moot.
Ray
Ryan Kaldari
- Tempska, Urzula (2002). "'Originality' After the Dead Sea Scrolls
Decision: Implications for the American Law of Copyright". /Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review/ *6* (1): 132.
- Elkin-Koren, Niva (2001). "Of Scientific Claims and Proprietary
Rights: Lessons from the Dead Sea Scrolls", /Houston Law Review/ *38* (2): 458, 460.
On 10/3/11 6:16 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiendili@gmail.com wrote:
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US.
Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers.
WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling the rest of the world that the work is public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose without permission, is another.
The people who really feel offended by the Israel Museum's claim would do best to accept responsibility for their claims. Given the nature of the work there is perhaps a little more skill to these scans than was the case for NPG portraits. I don't know how a court decision would turn out. I am certainly not confident enough to pursue this myself, nor would I want to do it for material I don't understand.
Anyone who simply feels that these scans should be freely available can simply put them up on his own site in whatever country he wants, and wait for the lawsuit to happen or not happen. There are some areas where I feel that Wikimedia policies about copyright are wrong, and even paranoid, but I would be wrong to insist that any WMF project host them unless I am ready to defend a legal action against a site that I fully own and control. That's what being responsible is about.
I don't see a problem with hosting them on projects which allow non-free material, with a tag at the least saying that The Israel Museum claims copyright. The museum doesn't seem to mind copying/distribution "for research or private study". But the list of projects which allow non-free material doesn't include the most relevant project - wikisource.
The "free content only" rule is meant to protect third parties, not WMF.
But note here that I'm only talking about the images, not the text. The photographs do not, and are not meant to, depict the "image" which was created on the scrolls hundreds of years ago. They are meant to, and do, depict the scrolls as they existed at the time the photos were taken. This, I believe, is a major distinction between the NPG portraits and this one.
The scrolls themselves were created to depict text, not an image, and there is there seems to be absolutely no dispute at all that the *text* of the scrolls (to the extent it can be determined) is public domain.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the brow" and requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2]
Does it recognise date of first publication?
On 10/3/11 4:36 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the brow" and requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2]
Does it recognise date of first publication?
I don't know, but it seems like it would be difficult to argue that the Dead Sea Scrolls were "unpublished" until recently. None of the discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely on the issue of originality.
Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/3/11 4:36 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the brow" and requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2]
Does it recognise date of first publication?
I don't know, but it seems like it would be difficult to argue that the Dead Sea Scrolls were "unpublished" until recently.
The photos of them were, though.
None of the discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely on the issue of originality.
The Qimron case is completely irrelevant with regard to the copyright of the images. It is a case about the *text*.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
None of the discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely on the issue of originality.
The Qimron case is completely irrelevant with regard to the copyright of the images. It is a case about the *text*.
If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone is going to have a problem with that. The copyright notice claims copyright "in the digital images of the manuscripts", not in the text.
2011/10/4 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
None of the discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely on the issue of originality.
The Qimron case is completely irrelevant with regard to the copyright of the images. It is a case about the *text*.
If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone is going to have a problem with that. The copyright notice claims copyright "in the digital images of the manuscripts", not in the text.
There's no copyright over text, that is public domain for sure.
Aubrey
On 10/4/11 8:16 AM, Anthony wrote:
If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone is going to have a problem with that. The copyright notice claims copyright "in the digital images of the manuscripts", not in the text.
Well, there doesn't appear to be any basis for a copyright claim on the images of the scrolls themselves, as neither Israeli law nor American law recognizes "sweat of the brow". The only valid claim would be on reconstructions of the text. Of course if we have no immediate need for the images and want maintain a good relationship with the Israeli museum, it may not be a good idea to mass upload them to Commons.
Ryan Kaldari
Hi, Gerard.
I supose you know what is paleography. And therefore you know that there is an intrinsic value in a raw manuscript, which provides information about schools of calligraphy, styles... an ancient manuscript is something like a painting masterpiece. All those things can't be transmitted by the sole transcription. Even more, a single fuzzy letter can challenge the whole interpretation of the whole manuscript.
An example: The "Cantar de Mio Cid" codex ends with this blurry datation:
**Quien escrivió este libro de Dios paraíso, amen* *Per Abbat le escrivió en el mes de mayo en era de mil e. CC XLV años* *
(May God give the paradise to the one who wrote this book, Amen Abbot Peter wrote this book in the month of May of the era of thousand and CC (gap) XLV year)
Well: the sole gap launched hard discussions lasting decades, because some schollars stated that a C was deleted. You can imaginate that the solution came from paleographic studies.
Now: think about that hebrew have had no vowels until mesorah. Transcription can not be taken seriously in any conceivable way. Any transcription issue, and I assure that will be thousands of them need to be backed in the same manuscript. The high informative value of the manuscript is *the main reason for copywriting it.*
All this *high value* information will be lost for the free kwnoledge with the copywright, and its a very bad idea. It's a lost chance for the free knowledge movement to resign.
So, please, Gerard, you know that I'm your fan, but understand that some people can feel disappointed about this copywriting and they want to make something about it.
Yes, of course: we must be firmly polite, we must be patient and try to explain the advantages of a public domain or at least a free licence over the time, but we must not give up.
So, Gerard,
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/4/11 8:16 AM, Anthony wrote:
If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone is going to have a problem with that. The copyright notice claims copyright "in the digital images of the manuscripts", not in the text.
Well, there doesn't appear to be any basis for a copyright claim on the images of the scrolls themselves, as neither Israeli law nor American law recognizes "sweat of the brow".
Anyone have any info on the applicability of Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc? It may not be "sweat of the brow", but it sets the "originality" threshold awfully low:
"A copyist's bad eyesight or defective musculature, or a shock caused by a clap of thunder, may yield sufficiently distinguishable variations. n24 Having hit upon such a variation unintentionally, the 'author' may adopt it as his and copyright it."
http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/bellcataldatext.htm http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/chp2/bellcatalda.htm
The only valid claim would be on reconstructions of the text.
Is this your professional legal opinion, then?
Is the copyright claim on the scroll or the image. I would expect the latter and they are perfectly entitled to claim copyright on the image, the issue is that in various countries it could be held true by the courts that it is in copyright, and in others it isn't. Truth in copyright claims is like truth in advertising. ;-)
Regards, Andrew
On 27 Sep 2011 at 0:57, emijrp wrote:
OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for claiming copyright.
2011/9/27 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other
countries.
It's not even binding on other districts within the US.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law countries have moved towards applying the "threshold of originality" standard and away from the "sweat of the brow" standard.[1] Canada, for example, now largely follows Feist. Even UK jurisprudence is gradually transitioning (and is currently inconsistent). (Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat based). The enactment of database rights throughout Europe has made this transition easier, as even without sweat of the brow, database IP is now protected (independent of copyright) throughout Europe.
Israel is both a common law and civil law country. I'm not aware of any court cases in Israel that have addressed this issue so far. It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out there. For the record, though, I would never trust a museum to give me a accurate assessment of the state of copyright law in a given country.
1. Gervais, Daniel J. (Summer 2002). "Feist Goes Global: A Comparative Analysis of the Notion of Originality in Copyright Law". /Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A./ *49*: 949--981.
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/26/11 3:39 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other countries.
It's not even binding on other districts within the US.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
(Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat based).
Well, we recently confirmed that computers can't have sweat on their brows. So there's some progress!
http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/high-court-closes-book-on-telstra/531...
Wow, it looks like I may be wrong. Very good news from Australia! Thanks for the link.
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/27/11 11:57 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
(Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat based).
Well, we recently confirmed that computers can't have sweat on their brows. So there's some progress!
http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/high-court-closes-book-on-telstra/531...
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law countries have moved towards applying the "threshold of originality" standard and away from the "sweat of the brow" standard.[1] Canada, for example, now largely follows Feist. Even UK jurisprudence is gradually transitioning (and is currently inconsistent).
UK requires originality. But it's not at all clear that a photograph of something out of copyright is unoriginal (even if that something is "two dimensional").
By the common meaning of the word "original", I'd say the photograph *is* original. OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within the US legal meaning of the term. In any case, any copyright on the photograph of course does not extend to the text.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
By the common meaning of the word "original", I'd say the photograph *is* original. OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within the US legal meaning of the term.
I should add that, in my US analysis, I was making the assumption that there was no creative post-processing of the photograph, which on second thought is not a safe assumption.
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 20:07 -0400, Anthony wrote:
UK requires originality. But it's not at all clear that a photograph of something out of copyright is unoriginal (even if that something is "two dimensional").
By the common meaning of the word "original", I'd say the photograph *is* original. OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/original?show=1&t=1317181660
1 : of, relating to, or constituting an origin or beginning : initial
<the original part of the house>
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
2 a : not secondary, derivative, or imitative <an original composition>
The photograph is secondary, derivative and imitative.
b : being the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction,
or translation is or can be made
The photograph is not the first instance.
3 : independent and creative in thought or action : inventive <an
original artist>
The photograph is not independent or creative.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"?
The photograph is secondary, derivative and imitative.
Yes.
The photograph is not the first instance.
The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This definition doesn't mean "the first instance of anything". If that were true then *nothing* would be original.
I'd say by this definition in particular it is quite clear that there was an original photograph. A photo of an object is the first instance of a new thing, it is not a copy of the object itself.
The photograph is not independent or creative.
Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile together, etc.
2011/9/28 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org
Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile together, etc.
True. AFAIK, the pre-production and post-production here has been "huge". The project is pretty amazing.
Aubrey
On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenskismolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"?
Yes there is, and this isn't it.
The photograph is not the first instance.
The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This
Copyright does not protect physical objects. The image that is fixed on the first instance of the physical photograph is not the first instance of the image.
The photograph is not independent or creative.
Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the
The fact that you can devise a creative method to create an image does not mean that the image itself is creative. As an extreme example, I can devise an extremely creative false backstory for me in order to gain access to a document, then photocopy it. The fact that I was creative while devising my story does not give me copyright to a photocopy.
built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have
How the hell is that creative?
even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely
Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still are not.
selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile
This must be the worst pro-copyright argument of all times. So I have two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not.
together, etc.
This choice is limited by technical possibilities of the devices and not by someone's creative decision.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenskismolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"?
Yes there is, and this isn't it.
Why not? What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to whatever this photograph is?
The photograph is not the first instance.
The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This
Copyright does not protect physical objects. The image that is fixed on the first instance of the physical photograph is not the first instance of the image.
Sure it is. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
And if it isn't (which, you'll have to explain), can that be said about *any* photograph?
The photograph is not independent or creative.
Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the
The fact that you can devise a creative method to create an image does not mean that the image itself is creative.
No, it doesn't. However, I am contending that creativity most likely *did* go into creating the image.
As an extreme example, I can devise an extremely creative false backstory for me in order to gain access to a document, then photocopy it. The fact that I was creative while devising my story does not give me copyright to a photocopy.
True.
built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have
How the hell is that creative?
Have you ever converted a raw image into a jpeg? If you have, then I would think you'd know how the hell it is creative.
For one thing, you're converting 12 or 14 bits of color data per pixel into 8. So you have to select what information to lose, and what information to keep.
even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely
Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still are not.
The original photographs (*) are not what are displayed on the website.
(*) I thought you said these weren't "original photographs".
selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile
This must be the worst pro-copyright argument of all times.
You need to reread what I said. I was not making a pro-copyright argument.
So I have two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not.
And I didn't say they were.
together, etc.
This choice is limited by technical possibilities of the devices and not by someone's creative decision.
Our choices are always limited by the technical possibilities of the devices we are using.
On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenskismolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenskismolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"?
Yes there is, and this isn't it.
Why not? What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to whatever this photograph is?
An original photograph is a photograph that fixes an original image.
The photograph is not the first instance.
The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This
Copyright does not protect physical objects. The image that is fixed on the first instance of the physical photograph is not the first instance of the image.
Sure it is. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
Sure it is not in this case.
And if it isn't (which, you'll have to explain), can that be said about *any* photograph?
No.
The photograph is not independent or creative.
Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the
The fact that you can devise a creative method to create an image does not mean that the image itself is creative.
No, it doesn't. However, I am contending that creativity most likely *did* go into creating the image.
So then why are you mentioning F-stop, shutter speed and lighting, neither of which add any creativity to these images?
built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have
How the hell is that creative?
Have you ever converted a raw image into a jpeg? If you have, then I would think you'd know how the hell it is creative.
For one thing, you're converting 12 or 14 bits of color data per pixel into 8. So you have to select what information to lose, and what information to keep.
I would assume that in this case the goal of the conversion was to preserve the most data, and not to add a creative touch to the images.
even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely
Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still are not.
The original photographs (*) are not what are displayed on the website.
(*) I thought you said these weren't "original photographs".
Now you're just trolling. The original physical photographs, as opposed to unoriginal images displayed on the photographs.
selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile
This must be the worst pro-copyright argument of all times.
You need to reread what I said. I was not making a pro-copyright argument.
You need to rewrite what you wrote so that it reflects what you meant. You were making a pro-copyright argument.
So I have two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not.
And I didn't say they were.
Yes you did.
together, etc.
This choice is limited by technical possibilities of the devices and not by someone's creative decision.
Our choices are always limited by the technical possibilities of the devices we are using.
So what?
Facts and Opinions on the copyright can be added to the Wikipedia talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Google_scans
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
Why not? What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to whatever this photograph is?
An original photograph is a photograph that fixes an original image.
You're just restating the question. What constitutes an original image, as opposed to whatever this photograph depicts?
Where is the original image? When was it created? Who created it?
However, I am contending that creativity most likely *did* go into creating the image.
So then why are you mentioning F-stop, shutter speed and lighting, neither of which add any creativity to these images?
They are examples of the creative input which likely went into making this image.
I would assume that in this case the goal of the conversion was to preserve the most data
That's one place you are wrong, then. The goal is to preserve the most important data, not the most data. And choosing the most important data is an act of creativity. Selection is, in fact, one of the most important skills involved in photography.
(*) I thought you said these weren't "original photographs".
Now you're just trolling. The original physical photographs, as opposed to unoriginal images displayed on the photographs.
It's not trolling just because I pointed out that you're contradicting yourself. I said "the photograph *is* original". Now you are conceding exactly this point.
So I have two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not.
And I didn't say they were.
Yes you did.
Please quote where I said this.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
You need to reread what I said. I was not making a pro-copyright argument.
You need to rewrite what you wrote so that it reflects what you meant. You were making a pro-copyright argument.
Let me be clear, then. I have no position on the copyrightability of this image, neither in the US nor elsewhere, neither on whether or not this image is copyrighted, nor on whether or not it should be copyrightable.
I also don't see why copyrightability matters. Surely even if the images are copyrighted they can be used by WMF under the doctrine of fair use. And even if they are not copyrighted, it's not clear to me how the underlying images can even be obtained without committing a felony of exceeding authorized access to a computer.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel Museum. Congratulations.
If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical texts, then there is an argument that the author is still alive.... ;-)
(c) God, 2011
;-)
Are there any jurisdictions where a religious texts have been refused a copyright for reason of being divine?
There are a few legal cases about copyright of religious texts where the copyright has been given to the 'medium' / 'channeler'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_religious_works
And there is the crown hold copyright on KJV, in perpetuity.
-- John Vandenberg
Claiming copyright for religious works in use works also defense for possible alteration the original publisher or editor may regard as heretical. The similar happens in academia too. I know a certain online text database based on a scanned PD works, but the publisher (a certain academic society) denied even to put online publicly, they claimed "otherwise the data would be erroneously changed, we'll send a set of disks upon request for free, so everyone who needs can get the data. It's the best way for our interest to keep the criticized text in an appropriate level, avoid any corruption." There' a lot of this kind anecdotes, I guess?
Be relaxed, you have not to be so hostile, Emijrp. While we don't agree with them in this point (firmly), we can still be polite and they wouldn't disagree we share an ultimate goal to let the world share the knowledge. As Liam suggested. On the other hand we should understand they have their own revenue system - their own ecosystem which has been built perhaps for centuries, so that we should have them understand we don't want them to survive by exploring free access and rather we would like them to cooperate and cohabit.
It'll sure take a time, but I hope we go forward our mission without being unnecessarily aggressive.
Cheers,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel Museum. Congratulations.
If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical texts, then there is an argument that the author is still alive.... ;-)
(c) God, 2011
;-)
Are there any jurisdictions where a religious texts have been refused a copyright for reason of being divine?
There are a few legal cases about copyright of religious texts where the copyright has been given to the 'medium' / 'channeler'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_religious_works
And there is the crown hold copyright on KJV, in perpetuity.
As commentary, I'd like to add they put the Book of Common Prayer under the crown hold copyright too, but also they haven't done so on drafts, so that ongoing drat of BCP has been freely circulated and could be discussed.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I was not aggresive, but "sarcastic".
But obviously, there are reasons for being furious.
2011/10/1 KIZU Naoko aphaia@gmail.com
Claiming copyright for religious works in use works also defense for possible alteration the original publisher or editor may regard as heretical. The similar happens in academia too. I know a certain online text database based on a scanned PD works, but the publisher (a certain academic society) denied even to put online publicly, they claimed "otherwise the data would be erroneously changed, we'll send a set of disks upon request for free, so everyone who needs can get the data. It's the best way for our interest to keep the criticized text in an appropriate level, avoid any corruption." There' a lot of this kind anecdotes, I guess?
Be relaxed, you have not to be so hostile, Emijrp. While we don't agree with them in this point (firmly), we can still be polite and they wouldn't disagree we share an ultimate goal to let the world share the knowledge. As Liam suggested. On the other hand we should understand they have their own revenue system - their own ecosystem which has been built perhaps for centuries, so that we should have them understand we don't want them to survive by exploring free access and rather we would like them to cooperate and cohabit.
It'll sure take a time, but I hope we go forward our mission without being unnecessarily aggressive.
Cheers,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
Israel
Museum. Congratulations.
If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical
texts,
then there is an argument that the author is still alive.... ;-)
(c) God, 2011
;-)
Are there any jurisdictions where a religious texts have been refused a copyright for reason of being divine?
There are a few legal cases about copyright of religious texts where the copyright has been given to the 'medium' / 'channeler'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_religious_works
And there is the crown hold copyright on KJV, in perpetuity.
As commentary, I'd like to add they put the Book of Common Prayer under the crown hold copyright too, but also they haven't done so on drafts, so that ongoing drat of BCP has been freely circulated and could be discussed.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, I am here in Los Angeles with Amir. We have discussed the dead sea scrolls extensively. We discussed transcription, fonts appropriate for such old texts. The use of the text.
Do you believe that the suggestion for transcription was made by someone from the museum at Wikimania? That Amit is WMF Israel board ? That I am bored by the nonsence about all this ?
If all the words written had an equivalent in the transcription, I would mind that it takes so few words to say sarcastic and furious.. can you not elaborate (and transcribe more) ? Thanks, GerardM
2011/10/2 emijrp emijrp@gmail.com
I was not aggresive, but "sarcastic".
But obviously, there are reasons for being furious.
2011/10/1 KIZU Naoko aphaia@gmail.com
Claiming copyright for religious works in use works also defense for possible alteration the original publisher or editor may regard as heretical. The similar happens in academia too. I know a certain online text database based on a scanned PD works, but the publisher (a certain academic society) denied even to put online publicly, they claimed "otherwise the data would be erroneously changed, we'll send a set of disks upon request for free, so everyone who needs can get the data. It's the best way for our interest to keep the criticized text in an appropriate level, avoid any corruption." There' a lot of this kind anecdotes, I guess?
Be relaxed, you have not to be so hostile, Emijrp. While we don't agree with them in this point (firmly), we can still be polite and they wouldn't disagree we share an ultimate goal to let the world share the knowledge. As Liam suggested. On the other hand we should understand they have their own revenue system - their own ecosystem which has been built perhaps for centuries, so that we should have them understand we don't want them to survive by exploring free access and rather we would like them to cooperate and cohabit.
It'll sure take a time, but I hope we go forward our mission without being unnecessarily aggressive.
Cheers,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
Israel
Museum. Congratulations.
If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical
texts,
then there is an argument that the author is still alive.... ;-)
(c) God, 2011
;-)
Are there any jurisdictions where a religious texts have been refused a copyright for reason of being divine?
There are a few legal cases about copyright of religious texts where the copyright has been given to the 'medium' / 'channeler'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_religious_works
And there is the crown hold copyright on KJV, in perpetuity.
As commentary, I'd like to add they put the Book of Common Prayer under the crown hold copyright too, but also they haven't done so on drafts, so that ongoing drat of BCP has been freely circulated and could be discussed.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org