I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered, especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it using it to "increase awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms." Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an example of us taking copyright seriously.
But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her relatives?
Regards
Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
I think you raise a very good point, Jonathan. Anne Frank's diary is not just any book.
Paradoxically, the very fact that this is a special book by a special author is also the reason why many people - especially in the Netherlands - are uncomfortable about the recent and unexpected introduction of the possibility that there is a co-author.
Definitely, this is a very sensitive issue and Wikimedia Nederland is proceeding very, very cautiously. No-one should play copyright games with Anne Frank's diary.
(For those interested, ENWP has good information on the copyright issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl#Copyright_and_owners...)
Sandra Rientjes Directeur Wikimedia Nederland 06 31786379
verzonden vanaf mobiel I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered, especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it using it to "increase awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms." Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an example of us taking copyright seriously.
But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her relatives?
Regards
Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Well.. I don't think if it is good point. I mean - I have rather feeling that if only she could, she would probably decide to release her diary to public domain. Or in other words - this text is so important to the entire humankind that its publishing should not be blocked by copyright law just in order to produce some extra income.
We had similar case in Poland - regarding works of Janusz Korczak, of which copyright was extended due to some legal tricks which were very disputable. I helped a bit in legal battle to put his works back to public domain and am quite proud to do so...
2016-02-16 19:38 GMT+01:00 Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland < rientjes@wikimedia.nl>:
I think you raise a very good point, Jonathan. Anne Frank's diary is not just any book.
Paradoxically, the very fact that this is a special book by a special author is also the reason why many people - especially in the Netherlands - are uncomfortable about the recent and unexpected introduction of the possibility that there is a co-author.
Definitely, this is a very sensitive issue and Wikimedia Nederland is proceeding very, very cautiously. No-one should play copyright games with Anne Frank's diary.
(For those interested, ENWP has good information on the copyright issues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl#Copyright_and_owners... )
Sandra Rientjes Directeur Wikimedia Nederland 06 31786379
verzonden vanaf mobiel I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered, especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it using it to "increase awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms." Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an example of us taking copyright seriously.
But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her relatives?
Regards
Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
If she'd lived, her book _wouldn't be so important to the entirety of humankind_.
You have a feeling about what she'd do about it? You're putting words in a Holocaust victim's mouth. For shame.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Well.. I don't think if it is good point. I mean - I have rather feeling that if only she could, she would probably decide to release her diary to public domain. Or in other words - this text is so important to the entire humankind that its publishing should not be blocked by copyright law just in order to produce some extra income.
We had similar case in Poland - regarding works of Janusz Korczak, of which copyright was extended due to some legal tricks which were very disputable. I helped a bit in legal battle to put his works back to public domain and am quite proud to do so...
2016-02-16 19:38 GMT+01:00 Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland < rientjes@wikimedia.nl>:
I think you raise a very good point, Jonathan. Anne Frank's diary is not just any book.
Paradoxically, the very fact that this is a special book by a special author is also the reason why many people - especially in the Netherlands - are uncomfortable about the recent and unexpected introduction of the possibility that there is a co-author.
Definitely, this is a very sensitive issue and Wikimedia Nederland is proceeding very, very cautiously. No-one should play copyright games with Anne Frank's diary.
(For those interested, ENWP has good information on the copyright issues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl#Copyright_and_owners... )
Sandra Rientjes Directeur Wikimedia Nederland 06 31786379
verzonden vanaf mobiel I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered, especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it using it to "increase awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms." Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an example of us taking copyright seriously.
But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her relatives?
Regards
Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Jonathan,
We all realize how sensitive a subject this is. Not only because of the reasons you give, but also for the obvious reason that this is a highly influential and well known work we're talking about.
If we were publishers trying to make a buck out of selling the work, I would agree with you, and move on. However, that is not what we want to do as a movement. We don't try to take advantage, but we want to build upon works. We want to collaborate and stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants like this little girl.
Before the WMF deleted the pages from Wikisource, we were working on a context enriched version, and considering working on a free translation into English, which could then be used to spread the lessons this book can teach us to other languages beyond those in which it already is available. That would improve people's understanding, that would increase its reach.
Please note that the Anne Frank Fund is not the only charity that works on this legacy. Other relevant organisations (I don't know if I can go into details publicly) were more supportive.
Best regards, Lodewijk
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:35 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered, especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it using it to "increase awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms." Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an example of us taking copyright seriously.
But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her relatives?
Regards
Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This is also a major work that a lot of people in the global Jewish community would feel is an important part of the public domain, and enhancing of public education on these topics.
http://jewishfreeculture.org/sourcetexts/het-achterhuis-anne-frank-the-diary...
Thanks, Pharos
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
We all realize how sensitive a subject this is. Not only because of the reasons you give, but also for the obvious reason that this is a highly influential and well known work we're talking about.
If we were publishers trying to make a buck out of selling the work, I would agree with you, and move on. However, that is not what we want to do as a movement. We don't try to take advantage, but we want to build upon works. We want to collaborate and stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants like this little girl.
Before the WMF deleted the pages from Wikisource, we were working on a context enriched version, and considering working on a free translation into English, which could then be used to spread the lessons this book can teach us to other languages beyond those in which it already is available. That would improve people's understanding, that would increase its reach.
Please note that the Anne Frank Fund is not the only charity that works on this legacy. Other relevant organisations (I don't know if I can go into details publicly) were more supportive.
Best regards, Lodewijk
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:35 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered, especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well
still
be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright
on
faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it using it to "increase awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms." Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an example of us taking copyright seriously.
But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her relatives?
Regards
Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 16/02/2016 18:39, Lodewijk wrote:
If we were publishers trying to make a buck out of selling the work, I would agree with you, and move on. However, that is not what we want to do as a movement. We don't try to take advantage, but we want to build upon works. We want to collaborate and stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants like this little girl.
But that is exactly what you are doing. A publisher can fight for the right to make a buck without WP's help. A book of the diary costs a few pence, far less then the cost of the paper and ink for individual printing it. A digital copy is still a far inferior offering from a book version. I'm not sure that many actually prefer works like this as a pdf, html, or any other format over the book.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:
On 16/02/2016 18:39, Lodewijk wrote:
If we were publishers trying to make a buck out of selling the work, I would agree with you, and move on. However, that is not what we want to do as a movement. We don't try to take advantage, but we want to build upon works. We want to collaborate and stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants like this little girl.
But that is exactly what you are doing. A publisher can fight for the right to make a buck without WP's help. A book of the diary costs a few pence, far less then the cost of the paper and ink for individual printing it. A digital copy is still a far inferior offering from a book version. I'm not sure that many actually prefer works like this as a pdf, html, or any other format over the book.
And that is indeed what I tried to explain in the following paragraphs. A free work could offer more context (after all, it is over seventy years later now, and many of the concepts she refers to are unknown to most of us - let alone to people on the other side of the globe. Gladly, we have websites like Wikipedia where many are described where we can link to).
Also, while the book is translated a lot, and maybe even record holder with regards to availability in languages & sales, there are still languages it has not been translated into. That is also an added value. And yes, a publisher could then use those free texts to publish a dead-tree book with it.
I am primarily trying to argue that this is not so much taking 'advantage' but rather an opportunity to demonstrate what communities like ours are able to accomplish. Why the public domain is good for spreading works.
Lodewijk
WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com writes:
I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered, especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
This is one of the reasons why I believe that the current copyright system (where the copyright term is determined by the date of author's death) is flawed.
It results in a situation where certain works belonging to the same historical period may have insanely different copyright terms.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org