Re: gutvol-d Digest, Vol 14, Issue 64
The law binds people, not books. You are bound by the laws of the country where you is. The laws of your country will tell you how they apply themselves to works, wherever in the world they were published or created. Jonathan Ingram is in the UK, and bound by UK law. I'm in Canada and bound by Canadian law. The books I contribute to PG in the US have to satisfy US law, but to be safe, I also make sure they are PD under Canadian law, too. I'm chomping at the bit to be able to do other books which only have to jump through the PD-Canada hoop, and not the US law as well.... The 70 years reference, in the UK, means years post mortem autoris. In Canada, the figure is 50 years. (There are other wrinkles in both countries, like R Copyright, posthumous publication, anonymous and pseudonymous, joint authors; and in the UK, edition copyright -- that's the copyright the UK publisher claims, aka "typographical arrangements".) Summary: Copyright laws bind people, not books. ----- Original Message -----
From Rod Butcher <rbutcher@hyenainternet.com> Date Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:35:20 +1000 To Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] Felix Holt copyright ?
Can I get some clarification : I have read the copyright FAQ. Most of the books we deal with here in Australia were printed in the UK. Do the rules apply everywhere, in the country where I am or the country where the book was published ? Jonathan Ingram's post seems to indicate the latter i.e. all books he considers for scanning where he is (UK) must be elligible under UK law, irrespective of where they were published. Hence they have to have been published (effectively printed) more than 70 years ago, no matter where they were published. Correct ? I'm still faced with wondering how Wordsworth Classics UK can claim a "presentation of text format" copyright on books whereas Penguin Classics doesn't. Today's Topics: 1. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Jared Buck) 2. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Bowerbird@aol.com) 3. re: A Picture Says More Than 10,000 Words (Bowerbird@aol.com) 4. Re: Posting for List (Jared Buck) 5. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Bowerbird@aol.com) 6. Re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Marcello Perathoner) 7. Re: Felix Holt copyright ? (Bruce Albrecht) 8. Re: Felix Holt copyright ? (Rod Butcher) _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
The law binds people, not books.
You are bound by the laws of the country where you is. The laws of your country will tell you how they apply themselves to works, wherever in the world they were published or created.
Jonathan Ingram is in the UK, and bound by UK law. I'm in Canada and bound by Canadian law. The books I contribute to PG in the US have to satisfy US law, but to be safe, I also make sure they are PD under Canadian law, too. I'm chomping at the bit to be able to do other books which only have to jump through the PD-Canada hoop, and not the US law as well....
The 70 years reference, in the UK, means years post mortem autoris. In Canada, the figure is 50 years. (There are other wrinkles in both countries, like R Copyright, posthumous publication, anonymous and pseudonymous, joint authors; and in the UK, edition copyright -- that's the copyright the UK publisher claims, aka "typographical arrangements".)
Summary: Copyright laws bind people, not books.
----- Original Message -----
From Rod Butcher <rbutcher@hyenainternet.com> Date Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:35:20 +1000 To Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] Felix Holt copyright ?
Can I get some clarification : I have read the copyright FAQ. Most of the books we deal with here in Australia were printed in the UK. Do the rules apply everywhere, in the country where I am or the country where the book was published ? Jonathan Ingram's post seems to indicate the latter i.e. all books he considers for scanning where he is (UK) must be elligible under UK law, irrespective of where they were published. Hence they have to have been published (effectively printed) more than 70 years ago, no matter where they were published. Correct ?
I'm still faced with wondering how Wordsworth Classics UK can claim a "presentation of text format" copyright on books whereas Penguin Classics doesn't.
Today's Topics:
1. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Jared Buck) 2. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Bowerbird@aol.com) 3. re: A Picture Says More Than 10,000 Words (Bowerbird@aol.com) 4. Re: Posting for List (Jared Buck) 5. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Bowerbird@aol.com) 6. Re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Marcello Perathoner) 7. Re: Felix Holt copyright ? (Bruce Albrecht) 8. Re: Felix Holt copyright ? (Rod Butcher) Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Jared Buck <JBuck814366460@aol.com> To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: re: [gutvol-d] on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:53:10 -0700
Well, BB, that "inefficient system" you speak of, works just fine for everybody else that I know :) So, you're pretty much out of luck. WE are all volunteers here working on the books, but so are the people behind the scenes like Marcello, Aaron and Mike Hart. Yes, it's difficult to get people to work together sometimes. Research on what the term "compromise" means and you'll understand why we are able to work together despite differences of opinion. You give some, you take some. I'm not always going to get my way with regard to how I think things should be done with regard to how to do my post-processing, but it never hurts to ask the opinion of others who have done the same work to get their input on how I should do it. Yes, i don't have to take their advice, but I definately do listen to any and all opinions.
Jared
Bowerbird@aol.com wrote on 29/09/2005, 3:55 PM:
it seems -- to me anyway -- to be immoral to waste people's time with an inefficient system when they are _volunteering_ that time. if you are paying them, fine, but if they are volunteering, i believe that you have some kind of moral obligation to use their time well. Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bowerbird@aol.com To: gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org, Bowerbird@aol.com Subject: re: [gutvol-d] on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:54:26 -0400 (EDT)
jared said:
You, sir, are a troglodyte whose opinions aren't given much heed to many here.
isn't it strange how everyone's calling me "sir" these days?
and marcello's obsession, doing google-searches on me and all, is quite a tribute, don't you think? i mean, i know he likes me and all -- if i were ever feeling lonely, i'd know all i'd have to do is to make a post, and bingo!, just minutes later i'd have a reply, and have any of you had someone put up a "fansite" for you? -- but like i said, y'all might want to consider _pacing_ yourselves.
i can keep up this pace. i am a fast typer, and i've written up these ideas so many times already i can do it in my sleep, plus i always keep my cool in the flamewars, since i buy the kind of fire-retardant foam they use on the airport runways and i get it really cheap because i buy it by the tanker-truckload, but you, you guys, you're getting all emotional with terms like "slimeball" and "troglodyte", and i'm afraid one of you might blow a gasket.
you might want to take a deep breath, relax, count to ten... : +)
-bowerbird Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bowerbird@aol.com To: gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org, Bowerbird@aol.com Subject: re: [gutvol-d] A Picture Says More Than 10,000 Words Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:57:39 -0400 (EDT)
jared said:
WHAHAHA!! Good one, Marcello ;) that does look like BB, or at least what I imagine him to be like, lol. And don't take it down, it's too funny :-P
well, it doesn't much look like me. but it is me.
and i've had it up for many years now, maybe 3, which you can tell by doing f.t.p. to the website, so marcello won't be "taking it down" any time...
-bowerbird Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Jared Buck <JBuck814366460@aol.com> To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Posting for List Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:58:28 -0700
Hardly :) we may be veterans, but newbies are absoultely welcome here. ask away and we'll try to help in whatever way we can.
Jared
BunnyCAW@aol.com wrote on 29/09/2005, 2:39 PM:
I'm afraid I've stumbled into the wrong spot here. I thought that this was a spot for newbie questions such as what format to use, if illustrations should be scanned and included with the text, etc. It seems you are all experienced proof-readers and/or folks who have submitted ebooks already. Where would I direct such questions?
Catherine Waters
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bowerbird@aol.com To: gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org, Bowerbird@aol.com Subject: re: [gutvol-d] on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
jared said:
Well, BB, that "inefficient system" you speak of, works just fine for everybody else that I know :)
great. glad you're happy with it. :+)
everyone i admire strives for constant improvement, and doesn't mind if they get constructive criticism...
is that you?
i'm not so sure.
and it was because of people just like you, who wanted to shout me down without even listening to what i had to say, that i asked "why is it again that i wanted to help here?", and came up with no convincing answer, and thus decided i'd leave without helping.
when i'm away from you, i remember that the reason i want to help you is because i have an abiding love for electronic-books, and want them to succeed out in the world, because global 24/7 access to knowledge just might save the humans from extinction.
and that abiding love makes me come back and try it again. and then i run into people like you...
So, you're pretty much out of luck.
me? i think not. you're the ones losing out. but hey, it's your time and energy, to waste as you see fit. i'm just having fun watching...
WE are all volunteers here working on the books, but so are the people behind the scenes like Marcello, Aaron and Mike Hart.
it's funny how you call him "mike" hart.
Yes, it's difficult to get people to work together sometimes.
well, i ain't trying to get you to "work together" with me. and i don't particularly want to "work together" with you.
i have some knowledge you would find useful, if you'd listen. but if you don't want to listen, it's no real skin off my nose...
Research on what the term "compromise" means and you'll understand why we are able to work together despite differences of opinion. You give some, you take some.
sounds wonderful. have at it.
i'm interested in electronic-books, not joining with your cult, so i'll just pick up the books after you're done preparing them, and move them on to an increased state of usefulness myself...
I'm not always going to get my way with regard to how I think things should be done with regard to how to do my post-processing, but it never hurts to ask the opinion of others who have done the same work to get their input on how I should do it. Yes, i don't have to take their advice, but I definately do listen to any and all opinions.
i don't think so. or you wouldn't be trying to shout me down.
but -- unlike the past -- i'm not going to let your nastiness and the nastiness of your colleagues interrupt me this time.
i'm just gonna keep posting examples that prove my pudding.
and this listserve? i don't much need it any longer. because i'm not trying to "preview" my system to you guys any more. i'm taking it out into the world, so they can taste the pudding.
-bowerbird Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Marcello Perathoner <marcello@perathoner.de> To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:22:22 +0200
Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
and marcello's obsession, doing google-searches on me and all, is quite a tribute, don't you think?
And a big fat search it was ... I simply googled for
"bowerbird intelligentleman"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bowerbird+intelligentleman&btnG=Search
and the second result did yield that pretty picture.
(There's also his address, if somebody thinks punching him on the nose is worth the airfare.)
i always keep my cool in the flamewars, ... but you, you guys, you're getting all emotional with terms like "slimeball" and "troglodyte", and i'm afraid one of you might blow a gasket.
While you get emotional with terms like:
you tarking naugshlocks here have often accused me of "kissing michael’s ass". ---- Bowerbird 21 Oct 2004
Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bruce Albrecht <bruce@zuhause.org> To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Felix Holt copyright ? Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:07:48 -0500
Karen Lofstrom writes:
Felix Holt is available at <http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/eliot/holt/>, but as a folder of individual HTML files, one for each chapter. Bastards. It's impossible to download the HTML and convert to a PDA-friendly format without a LOT of work. They're protecting their precious little digitization project.
Depending on the PDA, you might want to look into plucker, at http://www.pluckr.org/ I download HTML to my Treo all the time, and if it has links from one chapter to the next, you only need to list the first chapter and the number of links you want it to traverse.
Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Rod Butcher <rbutcher@hyenainternet.com> To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Felix Holt copyright ? Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:35:20 +1000
Can I get some clarification : I have read the copyright FAQ. Most of the books we deal with here in Australia were printed in the UK. Do the rules apply everywhere, in the country where I am or the country where the book was published ? Jonathan Ingram's post seems to indicate the latter i.e. all books he considers for scanning where he is (UK) must be elligible under UK law, irrespective of where they were published. Hence they have to have been published (effectively printed) more than 70 years ago, no matter where they were published. Correct ? I'm still faced with wondering how Wordsworth Classics UK can claim a "presentation of text format" copyright on books whereas Penguin Classics doesn't. thanks Rod The implication of this is that if the On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 17:31 -0500, Aaron Cannon wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
You might also check David's In-Progress list. That way, you can see if anyone else is working on that title. http://www.dprice48.freeserve.co.uk/GutIP.html
Sincerely Aaron Cannon
At 12:19 PM 9/29/2005, you wrote:
Rod:
Thanks for your interest!
There are still a huge number of eligible, worth-while texts which have not been added to Project Gutenberg, simply because no volunteer has done them yet.
For purposes of posting to Project Gutenberg, we need to be able to show that a book is not covered by copyright in the US, according to one of the rules as described here: http://www.gutenberg.org/howto/copyright-howto
Generally, that will mean that you must use an imprint that was published prior to 1923, or that _says_ it is a reprint of a pre-1923 imprint. Publishers do often put a new copyright notice on a book when there is actually no new material that merits copyright protection, but there is little we can do about that.
Also, take a look at http://www.gutenberg.org/faq/ for the Copyright FAQ section.
Thanks, Andrew
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Rod Butcher wrote:
Greetings from Sydney Australia, my first post here. As a literature student who has made use of free online gutenberg texts, I thought I'd like to put something back. I couldn't find George Eliot's Felix Holt and thought maybe I could scan and proof-correct it as my contribution. Then I wondered why has it not already been done , as it is a standard text... is there a copyright problem ? As I understand it, it is in public domain in the US since it was written before Jan 1923, also here in Australia since the author died more than fifty years ago. But my UK Wordsworth Classics edition has a text copyright notice. How can they do this ? I find a similar copyright notice in other Wordsworth texts, but not in Penguin Classics. Is there some kind of "publisher's copyright" separate to the "author's copyright ?" which means I have to find an edition that doesn't assert any copyright ? Or does UK copyright work differently ? thanks Rod
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
- -- E-mail: cannona@fireantproductions.com Skype: cannona MSN Messenger: cannona@hotmail.com (Do not send E-mail to the hotmail address.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) - GPGrelay v0.959 Comment: Key available from all major key servers.
iD8DBQFDPGuSI7J99hVZuJcRAjnDAKDS/2wQCZd6RjBcr5xUGhhwxJ/xjgCgmuPr JU4gV7Bueni++gwLxKENtIE= =yydG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d -- http://distributedcomputing.info - find out how to make your pc work for
Thanks for clearing that up Wallace. At the risk of boring everybody silly, can I confirm one more thing before I start contributing. The FAQ states in Rule 1 : "Works first published before January 1, 1923 with proper copyright notice entered the public domain no later than 75 years from the date copyright was first secured. Hence, all works whose copyrights were secured before 1923 are now in the public domain". What exactly does "works first published" and "copyright secured" mean ? If a work was "first published" in 1848 it seems to meet this rule. But what is the status of say a 2002 edition of that work ? Is copyright established anew on a reprint ? Feedback so far seems to say I need to use pre-1923 editions, but the above wording seems ambiguous. thanks Rod On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 23:45 -0400, Wallace J.McLean wrote: the community
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 03:09:28PM +1000, Rod Butcher wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up Wallace. At the risk of boring everybody silly, can I confirm one more thing before I start contributing. The FAQ states in Rule 1 : "Works first published before January 1, 1923 with proper copyright notice entered the public domain no later than 75 years from the date copyright was first secured. Hence, all works whose copyrights were secured before 1923 are now in the public domain". What exactly does "works first published" and "copyright secured" mean ? If a work was "first published" in 1848 it seems to meet this rule. But what is the status of say a 2002 edition of that work ? Is copyright established anew on a reprint ? Feedback so far seems to say I need to use pre-1923 editions, but the above wording seems ambiguous. thanks Rod
As you might have seen in the archives, we usually recommend submitting a clearance request at http://copy.pglaf.org , or email Juliet & I via copyright@pglaf.org , with specific cases. There is often ambiguity, and we can try to help. The short answer is that the entire phrase is accurate: a. anything published prior to January 1 1923 is in the public domain in US. This is regardless of where it was published or by whom. It might be easier to think of this rule as applying to physical artifacts -- i.e., books. b. any item for which a copyright was first secured prior to January 1 1923 is now in the public domain in the US. Again, regardless of where it was published or by whom, though of course only the US required copyright registration so this really only applies to items published in the US. It might be easier to think of this rule as applying to the content, not a physical container. So let's say you have a book from 1922. It's public domain in the US, no matter what. Apply (a). What if you have a book from 1951 that says, "Copyright 1922, renewed 1951" with a printing history, or something about it being a reprint? In that case, it is probably the case that the 1951 content exactly matches the 1922 content, so we apply (b). If there is doubt about whether an item post-1922 matches content from pre-1923, we like to do a comparison to see how different they are. If the differences do not warrant a new copyright, we will declare a post-1922 item as public domain in the US. This could happen to your 2002 book. Publishers don't make it easy to tell whether the item is public domain. You can go to your local bookstore and pick up many Penguin, Dover or Barnes & Noble classics that seem to be copyrighted. In that case, we might need to do a comparison. Maybe the copyright just applies to notes, an index, cover art, an introduction, or a preface? We often determine that the main text is public domain, and the added stuff is not. This can be convenient when a newer item has cleaner pages, and scans+OCR better. The advice of sticking to pre-1923 items is good... actual physical books from 1922 and earlier are public domain. Alternatively, content published prior to 1923 is public domain, too, but it the physical book containing that content is post-1922 we need to do some sort of comparison (or seek other evidence that it matches its earlier counterpart). Note, as always, that the US rules are unique and quirky in the world. AFAIK, the US is the only country that ever required copyright registration & renewal. It is one of very few that based copyright expiration on publication date, rather than the author's death date. This can be very frustrating, since content published post-1923 by long-dead authors isn't automatically clearable: we need to check that it actually matches the earlier text, lest there be new & copyrightable content. I hope this helps. There are plenty of other details and situations, which is why it's nice to just submit items you're interested in getting a public domain determination for -- it's easier than dealing in the abstract, and thinking of all kinds of hypothetical exceptions. Best, -- Greg
The law binds people, not books.
You are bound by the laws of the country where you is. The laws of your country will tell you how they apply themselves to works, wherever in the world they were published or created.
Jonathan Ingram is in the UK, and bound by UK law. I'm in Canada and bound by Canadian law. The books I contribute to PG in the US have to satisfy US law, but to be safe, I also make sure they are PD under Canadian law, too. I'm chomping at the bit to be able to do other books which only have to jump through the PD-Canada hoop, and not the US law as well....
The 70 years reference, in the UK, means years post mortem autoris. In Canada, the figure is 50 years. (There are other wrinkles in both countries, like R Copyright, posthumous publication, anonymous and pseudonymous, joint authors; and in the UK, edition copyright -- that's the copyright the UK publisher claims, aka "typographical arrangements".)
Summary: Copyright laws bind people, not books.
----- Original Message -----
From Rod Butcher <rbutcher@hyenainternet.com> Date Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:35:20 +1000 To Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] Felix Holt copyright ?
Can I get some clarification : I have read the copyright FAQ. Most of the books we deal with here in Australia were printed in the UK. Do the rules apply everywhere, in the country where I am or the country where the book was published ? Jonathan Ingram's post seems to indicate the latter i.e. all books he considers for scanning where he is (UK) must be elligible under UK law, irrespective of where they were published. Hence they have to have been published (effectively printed) more than 70 years ago, no matter where they were published. Correct ?
I'm still faced with wondering how Wordsworth Classics UK can claim a "presentation of text format" copyright on books whereas Penguin Classics doesn't.
Today's Topics:
1. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Jared Buck) 2. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Bowerbird@aol.com) 3. re: A Picture Says More Than 10,000 Words (Bowerbird@aol.com) 4. Re: Posting for List (Jared Buck) 5. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Bowerbird@aol.com) 6. Re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Marcello Perathoner) 7. Re: Felix Holt copyright ? (Bruce Albrecht) 8. Re: Felix Holt copyright ? (Rod Butcher) Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Jared Buck <JBuck814366460@aol.com> To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: re: [gutvol-d] on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:53:10 -0700
Well, BB, that "inefficient system" you speak of, works just fine for everybody else that I know :) So, you're pretty much out of luck. WE are all volunteers here working on the books, but so are the people behind the scenes like Marcello, Aaron and Mike Hart. Yes, it's difficult to get people to work together sometimes. Research on what the term "compromise" means and you'll understand why we are able to work together despite differences of opinion. You give some, you take some. I'm not always going to get my way with regard to how I think things should be done with regard to how to do my post-processing, but it never hurts to ask the opinion of others who have done the same work to get their input on how I should do it. Yes, i don't have to take their advice, but I definately do listen to any and all opinions.
Jared
Bowerbird@aol.com wrote on 29/09/2005, 3:55 PM:
it seems -- to me anyway -- to be immoral to waste people's time with an inefficient system when they are _volunteering_ that time. if you are paying them, fine, but if they are volunteering, i believe that you have some kind of moral obligation to use their time well. Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bowerbird@aol.com To: gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org, Bowerbird@aol.com Subject: re: [gutvol-d] on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:54:26 -0400 (EDT)
jared said:
You, sir, are a troglodyte whose opinions aren't given much heed to many here.
isn't it strange how everyone's calling me "sir" these days?
and marcello's obsession, doing google-searches on me and all, is quite a tribute, don't you think? i mean, i know he likes me and all -- if i were ever feeling lonely, i'd know all i'd have to do is to make a post, and bingo!, just minutes later i'd have a reply, and have any of you had someone put up a "fansite" for you? -- but like i said, y'all might want to consider _pacing_ yourselves.
i can keep up this pace. i am a fast typer, and i've written up these ideas so many times already i can do it in my sleep, plus i always keep my cool in the flamewars, since i buy the kind of fire-retardant foam they use on the airport runways and i get it really cheap because i buy it by the tanker-truckload, but you, you guys, you're getting all emotional with terms like "slimeball" and "troglodyte", and i'm afraid one of you might blow a gasket.
you might want to take a deep breath, relax, count to ten... : +)
-bowerbird Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bowerbird@aol.com To: gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org, Bowerbird@aol.com Subject: re: [gutvol-d] A Picture Says More Than 10,000 Words Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:57:39 -0400 (EDT)
jared said:
WHAHAHA!! Good one, Marcello ;) that does look like BB, or at least what I imagine him to be like, lol. And don't take it down, it's too funny :-P
well, it doesn't much look like me. but it is me.
and i've had it up for many years now, maybe 3, which you can tell by doing f.t.p. to the website, so marcello won't be "taking it down" any time...
-bowerbird Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Jared Buck <JBuck814366460@aol.com> To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Posting for List Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:58:28 -0700
Hardly :) we may be veterans, but newbies are absoultely welcome here. ask away and we'll try to help in whatever way we can.
Jared
BunnyCAW@aol.com wrote on 29/09/2005, 2:39 PM:
I'm afraid I've stumbled into the wrong spot here. I thought that this was a spot for newbie questions such as what format to use, if illustrations should be scanned and included with the text, etc. It seems you are all experienced proof-readers and/or folks who have submitted ebooks already. Where would I direct such questions?
Catherine Waters
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bowerbird@aol.com To: gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org, Bowerbird@aol.com Subject: re: [gutvol-d] on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
jared said:
Well, BB, that "inefficient system" you speak of, works just fine for everybody else that I know :)
great. glad you're happy with it. :+)
everyone i admire strives for constant improvement, and doesn't mind if they get constructive criticism...
is that you?
i'm not so sure.
and it was because of people just like you, who wanted to shout me down without even listening to what i had to say, that i asked "why is it again that i wanted to help here?", and came up with no convincing answer, and thus decided i'd leave without helping.
when i'm away from you, i remember that the reason i want to help you is because i have an abiding love for electronic-books, and want them to succeed out in the world, because global 24/7 access to knowledge just might save the humans from extinction.
and that abiding love makes me come back and try it again. and then i run into people like you...
So, you're pretty much out of luck.
me? i think not. you're the ones losing out. but hey, it's your time and energy, to waste as you see fit. i'm just having fun watching...
WE are all volunteers here working on the books, but so are the people behind the scenes like Marcello, Aaron and Mike Hart.
it's funny how you call him "mike" hart.
Yes, it's difficult to get people to work together sometimes.
well, i ain't trying to get you to "work together" with me. and i don't particularly want to "work together" with you.
i have some knowledge you would find useful, if you'd listen. but if you don't want to listen, it's no real skin off my nose...
Research on what the term "compromise" means and you'll understand why we are able to work together despite differences of opinion. You give some, you take some.
sounds wonderful. have at it.
i'm interested in electronic-books, not joining with your cult, so i'll just pick up the books after you're done preparing them, and move them on to an increased state of usefulness myself...
I'm not always going to get my way with regard to how I think things should be done with regard to how to do my post-processing, but it never hurts to ask the opinion of others who have done the same work to get their input on how I should do it. Yes, i don't have to take their advice, but I definately do listen to any and all opinions.
i don't think so. or you wouldn't be trying to shout me down.
but -- unlike the past -- i'm not going to let your nastiness and the nastiness of your colleagues interrupt me this time.
i'm just gonna keep posting examples that prove my pudding.
and this listserve? i don't much need it any longer. because i'm not trying to "preview" my system to you guys any more. i'm taking it out into the world, so they can taste the pudding.
-bowerbird Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Marcello Perathoner <marcello@perathoner.de> To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:22:22 +0200
Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
and marcello's obsession, doing google-searches on me and all, is quite a tribute, don't you think?
And a big fat search it was ... I simply googled for
"bowerbird intelligentleman"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bowerbird+intelligentleman&btnG=Search
and the second result did yield that pretty picture.
(There's also his address, if somebody thinks punching him on the nose is worth the airfare.)
i always keep my cool in the flamewars, ... but you, you guys, you're getting all emotional with terms like "slimeball" and "troglodyte", and i'm afraid one of you might blow a gasket.
While you get emotional with terms like:
you tarking naugshlocks here have often accused me of "kissing michael?s ass". ---- Bowerbird 21 Oct 2004
Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bruce Albrecht <bruce@zuhause.org> To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Felix Holt copyright ? Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:07:48 -0500
Karen Lofstrom writes:
Felix Holt is available at <http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/eliot/holt/>, but as a folder of individual HTML files, one for each chapter. Bastards. It's impossible to download the HTML and convert to a PDA-friendly format without a LOT of work. They're protecting their precious little digitization project.
Depending on the PDA, you might want to look into plucker, at http://www.pluckr.org/ I download HTML to my Treo all the time, and if it has links from one chapter to the next, you only need to list the first chapter and the number of links you want it to traverse.
Email message attachment -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: No Subject Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:52:18 +1000
Email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Rod Butcher <rbutcher@hyenainternet.com> To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Felix Holt copyright ? Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:35:20 +1000
Can I get some clarification : I have read the copyright FAQ. Most of the books we deal with here in Australia were printed in the UK. Do the rules apply everywhere, in the country where I am or the country where the book was published ? Jonathan Ingram's post seems to indicate the latter i.e. all books he considers for scanning where he is (UK) must be elligible under UK law, irrespective of where they were published. Hence they have to have been published (effectively printed) more than 70 years ago, no matter where they were published. Correct ? I'm still faced with wondering how Wordsworth Classics UK can claim a "presentation of text format" copyright on books whereas Penguin Classics doesn't. thanks Rod The implication of this is that if the On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 17:31 -0500, Aaron Cannon wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
You might also check David's In-Progress list. That way, you can see if anyone else is working on that title. http://www.dprice48.freeserve.co.uk/GutIP.html
Sincerely Aaron Cannon
At 12:19 PM 9/29/2005, you wrote:
Rod:
Thanks for your interest!
There are still a huge number of eligible, worth-while texts which have not been added to Project Gutenberg, simply because no volunteer has done them yet.
For purposes of posting to Project Gutenberg, we need to be able to show that a book is not covered by copyright in the US, according to one of the rules as described here: http://www.gutenberg.org/howto/copyright-howto
Generally, that will mean that you must use an imprint that was published prior to 1923, or that _says_ it is a reprint of a pre-1923 imprint. Publishers do often put a new copyright notice on a book when there is actually no new material that merits copyright protection, but there is little we can do about that.
Also, take a look at http://www.gutenberg.org/faq/ for the Copyright FAQ section.
Thanks, Andrew
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Rod Butcher wrote:
> Greetings from Sydney Australia, my first post here. As a literature > student who has made use of free online gutenberg texts, I thought I'd > like to put something back. I couldn't find George Eliot's Felix Holt > and thought maybe I could scan and proof-correct it as my contribution. > Then I wondered why has it not already been done , as it is a standard > text... is there a copyright problem ? > As I understand it, it is in public domain in the US since it was > written before Jan 1923, also here in Australia since the author died > more than fifty years ago. But my UK Wordsworth Classics edition has a > text copyright notice. How can they do this ? I find a similar copyright > notice in other Wordsworth texts, but not in Penguin Classics. Is there > some kind of "publisher's copyright" separate to the "author's > copyright ?" which means I have to find an edition that doesn't assert > any copyright ? Or does UK copyright work differently ? > thanks > Rod > _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
- -- E-mail: cannona@fireantproductions.com Skype: cannona MSN Messenger: cannona@hotmail.com (Do not send E-mail to the hotmail address.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) - GPGrelay v0.959 Comment: Key available from all major key servers.
iD8DBQFDPGuSI7J99hVZuJcRAjnDAKDS/2wQCZd6RjBcr5xUGhhwxJ/xjgCgmuPr JU4gV7Bueni++gwLxKENtIE= =yydG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d -- http://distributedcomputing.info - find out how to make your pc work for
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 23:45 -0400, Wallace J.McLean wrote: the community
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
Hi Rod. As Greg has mentioned, the only way to get an "official" call on if a certain item can be cleared is to submit scans of the title page and verso. Otherwise, you just get an endless string of hypothetical questions. The final call on whether a work is copyright cleared for PG purposes is made by the copyright team (last I heard it was just two people) not the individual volunteer. It is also a good idea to get a clearance done before you start working on a particular item, as the title is then put onto an "in-progress" list, which can help to prevent duplication of effort. Now to address your specific questions: 1) "Works first published before January 1, 1923" ought to be quite self-explanatory. Usually you have some type of copyright registration or publication date on the title page and/or verso to guide you here. If there is none, library records may contain a date. 2) "copyright secured" This phrase is used because the date a copyright was registered may have been years after it was created, or even in some cases, after it was published. Before adjusting American copyright laws to comply with the Berne convention, an individual had to register a copyright in the US to before copyright protection was granted. (It's actually more complex--but it's getting late now, and I'm not thinking clearly.) 3) If you have a 2002 edition which clearly states "reprint of 1848 edition" in the front matter, it will probably be acceptable for PG purposes. If it only says "Copyright 2002" it will probably _not_ be acceptable for PG purposes. If it says anything along the lines of "edited by so-and-so" it will probably _not_ be acceptable for PG purposes. At this point, I would refer you back to my first paragraph of this email. Thanks, Andrew On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Rod Butcher wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up Wallace. At the risk of boring everybody silly, can I confirm one more thing before I start contributing. The FAQ states in Rule 1 : "Works first published before January 1, 1923 with proper copyright notice entered the public domain no later than 75 years from the date copyright was first secured. Hence, all works whose copyrights were secured before 1923 are now in the public domain". What exactly does "works first published" and "copyright secured" mean ? If a work was "first published" in 1848 it seems to meet this rule. But what is the status of say a 2002 edition of that work ? Is copyright established anew on a reprint ? Feedback so far seems to say I need to use pre-1923 editions, but the above wording seems ambiguous. thanks Rod
--- Rod Butcher <rbutcher@hyenainternet.com> wrote:
If a work was "first published" in 1848 it seems to meet this rule. But what is the status of say a 2002 edition of that work ? Is copyright established anew on a reprint ? Feedback so far seems to say I need to use pre-1923 editions, but the above wording seems ambiguous.
It all depends on what the copyright notices at the start of the book say. Reprints of old works do not get new copyright, but new editions do. Technically only the new material is copyrighted, but it can sometimes be very hard to unpick the original material from the revised material. This is particularly annoying for some authors, with wonderful collected editions that have been 'edited' by someone who gives no indication as to exactly what they are claiming copyright over. If you are lucky, you may find a new edition of a work which only claims copyright over the illustrations, or a preface. In this case it's easy to isolate and remove the copyrighted portion of the work. -- Jon Ingram __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Jonathan Ingram wrote:
--- Rod Butcher <rbutcher@hyenainternet.com> wrote:
If a work was "first published" in 1848 it seems to meet this rule. But what is the status of say a 2002 edition of that work ? Is copyright established anew on a reprint ? Feedback so far seems to say I need to use pre-1923 editions, but the above wording seems ambiguous.
It all depends on what the copyright notices at the start of the book say. Reprints of old works do not get new copyright, but new editions do. Technically only the new material is copyrighted, but it can sometimes be very hard to unpick the original material from the revised material. I have some time on my hands so I'm ready for my first contribution.. can I clear up what is the status of a new edition of an old work which does not claim copyright but neither does it state that it is a reprint ? e.g. :-
first Published 1848 This editition published 1996 Introduction and notes copyright blah blah. All rights reserved. (?? what rights ?) The new material, i.e. intro & notes are quite legitimately copyrighted. The actual text is ancient history by now.. I could understand if this edition claimed to be a "corrected edition" based on uncovering alternative manuscript sources, but no such claim is made, so to me this might as well be a reprint of the 1848 edition - I can't see how the publisher merely resetting the type entitles it to a new copyright, especially in this age where computerisation makes such a task trivial. thanks Rod This is
particularly annoying for some authors, with wonderful collected editions that have been 'edited' by someone who gives no indication as to exactly what they are claiming copyright over.
If you are lucky, you may find a new edition of a work which only claims copyright over the illustrations, or a preface. In this case it's easy to isolate and remove the copyrighted portion of the work.
-- ----------------------------------------------------- <corporate disclaimer drivel goes here>
Hi There, Actually the 1996 version IS COPYRIGHTED!! But this reffers to this particular BOOK! The 1848 text is not copyrighted. So what does this mean: You cannot use this particular book to create a PG-text! But if you remove layout, just use the 1848 text part and do not state the scan source nobody can prove you violated the 1996 copyright. It is still illegal. The copyright is not on the 1848 text itself, but on the presentation of the text and book itself!! Complicated !? greetings Keith. Am 24.11.2005 um 08:23 schrieb Rod Butcher:
Jonathan Ingram wrote:
--- Rod Butcher <rbutcher@hyenainternet.com> wrote:
If a work was "first published" in 1848 it seems to meet this rule. But what is the status of say a 2002 edition of that work ? Is copyright established anew on a reprint ? Feedback so far seems to say I need to use pre-1923 editions, but the above wording seems ambiguous. It all depends on what the copyright notices at the start of the book say. Reprints of old works do not get new copyright, but new editions do. Technically only the new material is copyrighted, but it can sometimes be very hard to unpick the original material from the revised material. I have some time on my hands so I'm ready for my first contribution.. can I clear up what is the status of a new edition of an old work which does not claim copyright but neither does it state that it is a reprint ? e.g. :-
first Published 1848 This editition published 1996 Introduction and notes copyright blah blah. All rights reserved. (?? what rights ?)
The new material, i.e. intro & notes are quite legitimately copyrighted. The actual text is ancient history by now.. I could understand if this edition claimed to be a "corrected edition" based on uncovering alternative manuscript sources, but no such claim is made, so to me this might as well be a reprint of the 1848 edition - I can't see how the publisher merely resetting the type entitles it to a new copyright, especially in this age where computerisation makes such a task trivial.
thanks Rod This is
particularly annoying for some authors, with wonderful collected editions that have been 'edited' by someone who gives no indication as to exactly what they are claiming copyright over. If you are lucky, you may find a new edition of a work which only claims copyright over the illustrations, or a preface. In this case it's easy to isolate and remove the copyrighted portion of the work.
-- ----------------------------------------------------- <corporate disclaimer drivel goes here> _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
On 11/24/05, Keith J. Schultz <schultzk@uni-trier.de> wrote:
Actually the 1996 version IS COPYRIGHTED!! But this reffers to this particular BOOK! The 1848 text is not copyrighted.
Am 24.11.2005 um 08:23 schrieb Rod Butcher:
first Published 1848 This editition published 1996 Introduction and notes copyright blah blah. All rights reserved. (?? what rights ?)
Keith, that's only true in the EU, the individual members of which tend to have typographical copyright periods (it's 25 years in the UK, for example). In the USA, resetting the material doesn't get you a new copyright. As they have only claimed copyright over the introduction and notes, the main text is copyright free, and can legitimately be scanned and used to create a PG text. -- Jon Ingram
Questions like this come up on this mailing list every once in a while. Asking about copyright status on this mailing list will often only get you speculative, hypothetical answers. The only way to know for sure if you can consider a particular item to be ok to use for PG purposes is to submit the TP&V for copyright clearance. See: http://www.gutenberg.org/faq/V-37 As I see it, there are at least three things that contribute to the complexity of and misunderstanding of copyright laws. 1) Copyright is not just one "right", it is actually a bundle of related rights. (The right to copy, to distribute, to make derivative works, etc.) 2) Copyright laws are often affected by many different pieces of legislation. 3) Copyrights are dealt with on a national basis, that is the details vary in every country. Andrew On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Rod Butcher wrote:
Jonathan Ingram wrote:
--- Rod Butcher <rbutcher@hyenainternet.com> wrote:
If a work was "first published" in 1848 it seems to meet this rule. But what is the status of say a 2002 edition of that work ? Is copyright established anew on a reprint ? Feedback so far seems to say I need to use pre-1923 editions, but the above wording seems ambiguous.
It all depends on what the copyright notices at the start of the book say. Reprints of old works do not get new copyright, but new editions do. Technically only the new material is copyrighted, but it can sometimes be very hard to unpick the original material from the revised material. I have some time on my hands so I'm ready for my first contribution.. can I clear up what is the status of a new edition of an old work which does not claim copyright but neither does it state that it is a reprint ? e.g. :-
first Published 1848 This editition published 1996 Introduction and notes copyright blah blah. All rights reserved. (?? what rights ?)
The new material, i.e. intro & notes are quite legitimately copyrighted. The actual text is ancient history by now.. I could understand if this edition claimed to be a "corrected edition" based on uncovering alternative manuscript sources, but no such claim is made, so to me this might as well be a reprint of the 1848 edition - I can't see how the publisher merely resetting the type entitles it to a new copyright, especially in this age where computerisation makes such a task trivial.
thanks Rod This is
particularly annoying for some authors, with wonderful collected editions that have been 'edited' by someone who gives no indication as to exactly what they are claiming copyright over.
If you are lucky, you may find a new edition of a work which only claims copyright over the illustrations, or a preface. In this case it's easy to isolate and remove the copyrighted portion of the work.
participants (7)
-
Andrew Sly -
Greg Newby -
Jon Ingram -
Jonathan Ingram -
Keith J. Schultz -
Rod Butcher -
Wallace J.McLean