January 2005 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Jules Verne French texts
by N Wolcott 15 Jan '05

15 Jan '05

Although there are 19 French texts of Jules Verne on PG, there at least 17 more ready to go which only require converting from html to text format. I have identified at least V008, V010 .V014, V016, V017, V020, V024, V037, V043, V039, V047, V052, V055, V060 which are available at http://jv.gilead.org.il/works.html. Use the list at http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/sherwood/Voyages_Extraordinaire.htm as a Vxxx check list. Several of these are also on http://www.ebooksgratuits.com/ (which also has many others and from which the above may have been taken) already in Word format. This conversion is not a big job, and no doubt the more technical of you already have software which will do the conversion at a click. It would be nice if PG could have as many of the 65 Voyages Extraordinaires on by March 24, the centenary of Verne's death when many celebrations are planned.. While some of these have trickled on to PG from time to time, a more concerted effort is required to finish the job. N Wolcott nwolcott2(a)post.harvard.edu

2 1

Preferred diacritical mark
by Phil Hitchcock 15 Jan '05

15 Jan '05

I am currently preparing e-text versions of "W H Sleeman's, Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official". The book describes life and customs in India in the 1830's. Many of the place names, personal names, and various other words have a dash - placed over an a, e, i, or u, to indicate a long vowel. When I produce the 7-bit ASCII plain text, these marks will be missing; in the 8-bit ASCII version I am planning to use a circumflex accent ^ to replace the diacritical mark. However in a HTML version I could use the circumflex accent, or I could use the Unicode series starting with Ā to give a vowel with a dash over it, thus reproducing the original text form. However I have seen some present day publications using the circumflex accent on Indian place names. Thus, I am wondering what the Project Gutenberg preferred form would be for the diacritical mark in the HTML version. Philip Hitchcock Hertfordshire, UK. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 12/01/05

3 2

Re: [gutvol-d] Preferred diacritical mark
by D. Starner 15 Jan '05

15 Jan '05

"Phil Hitchcock" writes: > I am currently preparing e-text versions of "W H Sleeman's, Rambles and > Recollections of an Indian Official". The book describes life and customs in > India in the 1830's. > > Many of the place names, personal names, and various other words have a > dash - placed over an a, e, i, or u, to indicate a long vowel. > > When I produce the 7-bit ASCII plain text, these marks will be missing; in > the 8-bit ASCII version I am planning to use a circumflex accent ^ to > replace the diacritical mark. > > However in a HTML version I could use the circumflex > accent, or I could use the Unicode series starting with Ā to give a > vowel with a dash over it, thus reproducing the original text form. However > I have seen some present day publications using the circumflex accent on > Indian place names. > > Thus, I am wondering what the Project Gutenberg preferred form would be for > the diacritical mark in the HTML version. Always replicate what's in the book. There is sometimes a call for modernized versions, but we should have the original, unmodernized version first. I think using the circumflex in the Latin-1* version to be a suitable replacement, especially as that's what modern users are using, but put a transcriber's note at the top of the document noting that's what you've done. * There is no such thing as 8-bit ASCII. There's only 7-bit ASCII. There are 8-bit extensions to ASCII, literaly hundreds of them. Latin-1 (also known ISO standard 8859, part 1, or ISO-8859-1) is the one that PG usually uses; it's very similar to CP-1252 (for most purposes, a subset of CP-1252), the character set that Windows 95 on uses for Western Europe, and most likely you're most familiar with one of those two. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

1 0

Wired Magazine "gets it" on copyright
by Hagerson, John 14 Jan '05

14 Jan '05

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/view.html?pg=5

1 0

perl helper found
by John Hagerson 14 Jan '05

14 Jan '05

Thank you! John Hagerson

1 0

Perl help needed
by John Hagerson 14 Jan '05

14 Jan '05

I have no experience at all with perl and I need to parse some information from the PG catalog.rdf file. If someone is willing to assist me, I would appreciate it. Thank you. John Hagerson

3 3

Re: [gutvol-d] Bibliographic data
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

----- Original Message ----- >From "D. Starner" <shalesller(a)writeme.com> Date Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:41:44 -0800 To "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] Bibliographic data "Wallace J.McLean" writes: >> The benefit, of course, is that once the death date of an author is >> conclusively determined, then, barring wrinkles like collaborators, >> translators, co-authors, illustrators, and posthumous publication, all >> of that author's works are, by definition, cleared. >The catch is, you don't get to bar wrinkles like that. You have to deal >with them. By the same rule of thumb, any book printed before 1923 is, >by definition, cleared. Go US! And they are dealwithable on the basis of intrinsic evidence, intrinsic to the book. I'll take a post-1923 public domain any day, thank you very much. I'm currently working on the oeuvres of an author who died in 1939, so that the text, at least, of all his books, are public domain in Canada. (Some of the illustrations are by an illustrator who died in the 1970s; the illustrations aren't clearable, but can be excised.) However, about half of his works are post-1923 imprints. Boo, U.S. >> However, since third parties must also >> rely on the term of copyright rules to determine what they, as third >> parties, are entitled to do with a work, it would be unfair to the >> public if they (we) were estopped from using an ancient work simply >> because no one knew who the author was, to calculate the term, to >> decide whether the work is public domain or not. >In other words, there has to be special exceptions in the law because >it's messier than just printed by date. The US "just printed by date" rule won't be around forever: assuming no further changes in the US law, you'll have to start dealing with many of the same questions starting in 2019... and you'll STILL have a smaller public domain to play with. > There is a grand total of one book that I've looked into and not been able > to definitely pin down a publication date, and that was cleared anyway. You've been extremely lucky. In my personal library, I'd say 5 to 10 percent of my historical collection has indeterminate publication dates. > I can walk the shelves of my library and check to see whether most books > are in the public domain just by opening the cover. I can't do that with > a life+years system; in that case, I have to remember when they died. And you still have to do that for every single book; you can't batch- clear. > A American imprint without a date is in the public domain so long as you > can prove it was printed before 1989. Go US! I'm not certain that's a correct statement of the law. Are you? >> I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is. Translators? New >> editions? Typographical arrangements? I'm blind to them for the purpose >> of this analysis. Do they have an impact on what PG or anyone else can >> do with those works? Yes. Do I care? Not for the purpose of this little >> thought-experiment, no. >Then you're stacking the deck. Anyone can win if they do that. Not at all. I'm just making my life easier. Why are you being a prick? >>> Honestly, just confirming the death dates for most authors tells you that >>> all of thier works are in the public domain in the US. The exception, >>> works published after their death or still unpublished >> Or works published after 1922. >No, most authors died before 1923 and hence anything published after 1922 is >in the public domain. Oh? Tell that to the PG clearance team. > It's easier just to skip the whole thing altogether. If you're doing > this for PG, the question shouldn't be what's easier, it should be > what's useful to PG, which is US copyright law and publication dates. I'm doing it for me. Someone else can do it for PG under US law. Are you volunteering? Thanks.

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Canadian and American copyrights
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

Wallace J.McLean writes: >> The benefit, of course, is that once the death date of an author is >> conclusively determined, then, barring wrinkles like collaborators, >> translators, co-authors, illustrators, and posthumous publication, all >> of that author's works are, by definition, cleared. >And what about the myriad series that were basically contracted by the >publisher, and each one was "authored" by the publisher's chosen pen >name? Is that considered anonymously authored? No, that's considered pseudonymously authored! If the true identity of the author is not, has not been, and cannot reasonably be known, then the publication+50 rule kicks in. This was recently confirmed under Canadian law in a decision by the Copyright Board. If there's authority for the statement that John Smith was the true author of "Johnny and the Skyship" by "Charles Vander Pelt", published in 1939, then the life span of John Smith determines the duration of the copyright. If John Smith died in or before 1954, the work is public domain in Canada; if he died after 1954, it is still under copyright. If, on the other hand, there is no authority anywhere for the true identity of the author of "Johnny and the Skyship" by "Charles Vander Pelt", published in 1939, then the work is public domain under Canadian law, and has been since January 1, 1990. The work is NOT public domain in the US or any life+70 country that also has publication+70 for pseud/anon works.

1 0

Anonymous/pseudonymous term
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

----- Original Message ----- >From "D. Starner" <shalesller(a)writeme.com> Date Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:02:06 -0800 To "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] Canadian and American copyrights >So copyright law in Canada is designed to screw the little guys? Huh? >It's highly unfair to give one author life+50 because she's well known and >give another publication+50 because he's not and "there's [some] chance >[his name] is a pseudonym". If the name is DEFINITELY a pseudonym (or the work is anonymous), and the true identity of the author does not, in the meantime, become known, then publication+50 is the rule. Publication+[regular term] is a common rule, around the world, for anonymous or pseudonymous works. Since the regular term of copyright is keyed to the life of the author in Berne countries, if the author wants to give his/her heirs the benefit of the posthumous term of copyright, then they can do so by taking credit for their work. However, since third parties must also rely on the term of copyright rules to determine what they, as third parties, are entitled to do with a work, it would be unfair to the public if they (we) were estopped from using an ancient work simply because no one knew who the author was, to calculate the term, to decide whether the work is public domain or not. >Anyway, I have a hard time believing that >the Paul French novels are going to be in the public-domain in Canada in >a decade because Isaac Asimov used a pseudonym when writing them. If Isaac Asimov is known to be the true author of works under the pseudonym "Paul French", then the regular term applies: the work is no longer pseudonymous. What's really unfair is the idiotic 95-year term under the US code for anonymous or pseudonymous works.

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Canadian and American copyrights
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

> That's a good question. It brings up the issue of what kind of > copyright clearance is appropriate or neccessary for texts heading > into a PG of Canada collection. Or any PG of [COUNTRY WITH LIFE+} collection, for that matter. The benefit, of course, is that once the death date of an author is conclusively determined, then, barring wrinkles like collaborators, translators, co-authors, illustrators, and posthumous publication, all of that author's works are, by definition, cleared.

2 1