It is my understanding, from the edition of the 'A' volume of this encyclopedia published by the fine folks over at Project Gutenburg, that it is "uncool" to use the name "Britannica" in association with this book. The reason is that although the _copyright_ has indeed properly expired, the _trademark_ is still that of an active company. So, while the text is fair game, the name is not.
I'm cc:'ing this message to editor@1911encyclopedia.org, just so that person will know about this. But my opinion is not very authoritative. I'd just suggest getting the word 'Britannica' off the site _in the logo_, while feeling free to use the word in a text explanation of where this information comes from. (My understanding is that it's o.k. to say a trademark in just about any context, but not o.k. to use it in a fashion that might mislead people into thinking that you are the organization in question.)
The site, as it stands, doesn't really make clear that the people behind it are not the official Britannica people.
What a wonderful thing to have online.
--Jimbo
They have legal notice at the site:
Legal Notice:
The information on this site is protected against unauthorized use by others by a variety of laws and statutes. For more information on what you can and cannot do with the information on this site, please contact
editor@1911encyclopedia.com
Thanks
and they are using the name with permition:
Special thanks goes out to the people at Encyclopaedia Britannica who have graciously granted permission to us to use this material and their name on this site. Without their kind assistance, this site could not be.
We urge anyone interested in a modern, up-to-date encyclopedia to visit their site at http://www.eb.com.
Joao http://www.nonio.com
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is my understanding, from the edition of the 'A' volume of this encyclopedia published by the fine folks over at Project Gutenburg, that it is "uncool" to use the name "Britannica" in association with this book. The reason is that although the _copyright_ has indeed properly expired, the _trademark_ is still that of an active company. So, while the text is fair game, the name is not.
I'm cc:'ing this message to editor@1911encyclopedia.org, just so that person will know about this. But my opinion is not very authoritative. I'd just suggest getting the word 'Britannica' off the site _in the logo_, while feeling free to use the word in a text explanation of where this information comes from. (My understanding is that it's o.k. to say a trademark in just about any context, but not o.k. to use it in a fashion that might mislead people into thinking that you are the organization in question.)
The site, as it stands, doesn't really make clear that the people behind it are not the official Britannica people.
What a wonderful thing to have online.
--Jimbo
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Oh, very good, and I'm very glad to hear that about the Britannica people! Very reasonable and gracious of them!
João Mário Miranda wrote:
They have legal notice at the site:
Legal Notice:
The information on this site is protected against unauthorized use by others by a variety of laws and statutes. For more information on what you can and cannot do with the information on this site, please contact
editor@1911encyclopedia.com
Thanks
and they are using the name with permition:
Special thanks goes out to the people at Encyclopaedia Britannica who have graciously granted permission to us to use this material and their name on this site. Without their kind assistance, this site could not be.
We urge anyone interested in a modern, up-to-date encyclopedia to visit their site at http://www.eb.com.
Joao http://www.nonio.com
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is my understanding, from the edition of the 'A' volume of this encyclopedia published by the fine folks over at Project Gutenburg, that it is "uncool" to use the name "Britannica" in association with this book. The reason is that although the _copyright_ has indeed properly expired, the _trademark_ is still that of an active company. So, while the text is fair game, the name is not.
I'm cc:'ing this message to editor@1911encyclopedia.org, just so that person will know about this. But my opinion is not very authoritative. I'd just suggest getting the word 'Britannica' off the site _in the logo_, while feeling free to use the word in a text explanation of where this information comes from. (My understanding is that it's o.k. to say a trademark in just about any context, but not o.k. to use it in a fashion that might mislead people into thinking that you are the organization in question.)
The site, as it stands, doesn't really make clear that the people behind it are not the official Britannica people.
What a wonderful thing to have online.
--Jimbo
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- joão http://www.nonio.com http://www.explicacoes.com [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Oh, very good, and I'm very glad to hear that about the Britannica people! Very reasonable and gracious of them!
The 1911encyclopedia.org domain was registered by
Pagewise, inc byron reese 815-A Brazos St. #PMB 534 austin, TX 78701 US Phone: 512-478-4566 Fax..: 512-478-4726 Email: byron@pagewise.com
Pagewise.com is a for profit organization:
that owns the http://www.WriteForCash.com/ site.
Probably, they will claim some kind of copyrights over the digitalisation of the 1911 Encyclopedia.
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, João Mário Miranda wrote:
[snip]
The 1911encyclopedia.org domain was registered by
Pagewise, inc byron reese 815-A Brazos St. #PMB 534 austin, TX 78701 US Phone: 512-478-4566 Fax..: 512-478-4726 Email: byron@pagewise.com
Pagewise.com is a for profit organization:
that owns the http://www.WriteForCash.com/ site.
Probably, they will claim some kind of copyrights over the digitalisation of the 1911 Encyclopedia.
That's not possible from the point of view of the copyright law as scanning is not a creative expression and the copyright of the original material has expired. The only thing which is possible is to claim copyright on additional markup, layout, presentation and additional graphics.
HJH
João Mário Miranda wrote:
Pagewise.com is a for profit organization:
that owns the http://www.WriteForCash.com/ site.
Probably, they will claim some kind of copyrights over the digitalisation of the 1911 Encyclopedia.
I doubt that very much. If they were going to do that, presumably the Britannica people would not have been so gracious.
Strange as it may seem, sometimes businesses do things that don't directly contribute to profits. Maybe the owner just _believes in the idea_, and is willing to support it.
--Jimbo
João Mário Miranda wrote:
Pagewise.com is a for profit organization: Probably, they will claim some kind of copyrights over the digitalisation of the 1911 Encyclopedia.
Does anybody know if this text is the same as the one from Project Gutenberg, or a new scan?
If two independent scans exist, it might make sense to download both and run "diff" as a first step to create an improved version.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org