Hello. Most often I hear that the copyright of the book lasts 80 years after the death of author. But it is normal that the copyright is transferred to the publisher in the contract. Then why the copyright expiration is still tied to the author who don't have the copyright anymore? Is this misuse of copyright law? Should author keep the copyright (and publisher only license) so that the death+80 rule applies? That is most convenient to publishers, of course, because they get the copyright and its expiration is still tied to the author. In the example case, the book writing contract was made 8 years ago and the contract included the second edition published now. Because the publisher owns the copyright of the second edition already due the contract, the author has never owned the copyright. So how in this case the copyright expiration could never be tied to the author? Juhana
Copyright laws are different in every country. I know that in Canada, the duration of copyright is determined by the life-span of the creator, regardless of who actually owns the copyright. I cannot speak for any other countries. You are unlikely to find a useful answer here on the Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion list. For a list dedicated to discussing copyright issues, see: http://www.cni.org/forums/cni-copyright/ Andrew On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Hello. Most often I hear that the copyright of the book lasts 80 years after the death of author. But it is normal that the copyright is transferred to the publisher in the contract. Then why the copyright expiration is still tied to the author who don't have the copyright anymore? Is this misuse of copyright law? Should author keep the copyright (and publisher only license) so that the death+80 rule applies?
That is most convenient to publishers, of course, because they get the copyright and its expiration is still tied to the author.
In the example case, the book writing contract was made 8 years ago and the contract included the second edition published now. Because the publisher owns the copyright of the second edition already due the contract, the author has never owned the copyright. So how in this case the copyright expiration could never be tied to the author?
Juhana _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
Hi. Is it possible to send PG a collaborative/"distribued" translation (made, for instance, at Wikisource), based on an already PG published eBook? (This wouldn't actually be a self-submitted translation, since Wikisource works based on GFDL... And the original PG etext is already copyright cleared...) Ricardo 2006/7/4, Andrew Sly <sly@victoria.tc.ca>:
Copyright laws are different in every country.
I know that in Canada, the duration of copyright is determined by the life-span of the creator, regardless of who actually owns the copyright. I cannot speak for any other countries.
You are unlikely to find a useful answer here on the Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion list. For a list dedicated to discussing copyright issues, see: http://www.cni.org/forums/cni-copyright/
Andrew
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Hello. Most often I hear that the copyright of the book lasts 80 years after the death of author. But it is normal that the copyright is transferred to the publisher in the contract. Then why the copyright expiration is still tied to the author who don't have the copyright anymore? Is this misuse of copyright law? Should author keep the copyright (and publisher only license) so that the death+80 rule applies?
That is most convenient to publishers, of course, because they get the copyright and its expiration is still tied to the author.
In the example case, the book writing contract was made 8 years ago and the contract included the second edition published now. Because the publisher owns the copyright of the second edition already due the contract, the author has never owned the copyright. So how in this case the copyright expiration could never be tied to the author?
Juhana _______________________________________________ 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
-- «Vi de que noite é feita a luz do dia!» (Antero de Quental) Dê livros electrónicos ao Mundo. Ajude em http://www.pgdp.net e em http://dp.rastko.net
Ricardo: Interesting idea. At one point I had thought about what it would take to set up some kind of distributed translation process. I would say the best way to proceed is to send an email to Greg Newby (gbnewby [at] pglaf.org) asking this question, with complete details of the item in question, and a link to it. And I'm curious, could you let me know what it is too? Andrew On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Ricardo F Diogo wrote:
Hi. Is it possible to send PG a collaborative/"distribued" translation (made, for instance, at Wikisource), based on an already PG published eBook? (This wouldn't actually be a self-submitted translation, since Wikisource works based on GFDL... And the original PG etext is already copyright cleared...)
Ricardo
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:34:47PM -0700, Andrew Sly wrote:
Ricardo:
Interesting idea. At one point I had thought about what it would take to set up some kind of distributed translation process.
I would say the best way to proceed is to send an email to Greg Newby (gbnewby [at] pglaf.org) asking this question, with complete details of the item in question, and a link to it.
Hi, Ricardo. As long as it's formatted OK for us, we would probably accept it. We don't go for a lot of stuff in a few categories of items (tech docs and religion are two examples), and don't publish PDF-only documents nor, usually, HTML without plain text. You can see more guidance here on formatting: http://www.gutenberg.org/faq and here for our general non-public domain submission guidelines: http://www.gutenberg.org/howto/scopy-howto Note that we don't need the same level of permission letter for a GFDL/CC/etc. free license, but we still like to ask for permission. And, of course, it's still copyrighted. Finally, note that we don't have the personnel to handle frequent updates. For documents in flux, PG is likely not the right destination. I hope this helps, and thanks for your suggestions & ideas. -- Greg
And I'm curious, could you let me know what it is too?
Andrew
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Ricardo F Diogo wrote:
Hi. Is it possible to send PG a collaborative/"distribued" translation (made, for instance, at Wikisource), based on an already PG published eBook? (This wouldn't actually be a self-submitted translation, since Wikisource works based on GFDL... And the original PG etext is already copyright cleared...)
Ricardo
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
Hi again 2006/7/12, Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org>:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:34:47PM -0700, Andrew Sly wrote:
Ricardo:
Interesting idea. At one point I had thought about what it would take to set up some kind of distributed translation process.
Theoretically, something like PGDP would do (with some improvements and special documentation), since we could make "png's" from the txt files, with a few lines per page for guidance. Project comments/discussions could support the translation and the Post-Processor would need to check not only the format but also the consistency of the translation. It would be definitely harder than "simple" proofing, but.... it would be possible.
This system could also be used not only for translations but also for other tasks PG could benefit from but PGDP doesn't support. For these other tasks it would be nice to have some sort of a "Distributed Gutenbergers". For instance, due to deep spelling changes, Portuguese ebooks we're publishing now will probably be read only by University teachers/students. (I suppose the same happens with German). Ordinary people simply give up after a paragraph or may think they have lots of mistakes. I'm modernizing myself the spelling of an average etext and pre-calculate the differences in more than two thousand. In a distributed basis it would be a lot easier. This discussion on distributed translation started from a post in the Portuguese PGDP forum. I'm not thinking of any particular translation, Andrew, but perhaps I''ll had _Alice's Adventures in Wonderland_ to the translations in progress section at http://pt.wikisource.org to see what happens. Here's how they do it there: http://pt.wikisource.org/wiki/Predefini%C3%A7%C3%A3o:Lista_dos_Textos_em_Tra...
Hi, Ricardo. As long as it's formatted OK for us, we would probably accept it. We don't go for a lot of stuff in a few categories of items (tech docs and religion are two examples), and don't publish PDF-only documents nor, usually, HTML without plain text.
You can see more guidance here on formatting:
Thanks Greg. I'm familiar with PG rules (actually I've already translated some of them and I'm just waiting for PG's wiki to go public in order to add them).
Note that we don't need the same level of permission letter for a GFDL/CC/etc. free license, but we still like to ask for permission. And, of course, it's still copyrighted.
How would this work? Would someone just need to send you an email saying "Greg, I guess the distributed translation made at... is pretty good" so you could ask (eg Wikisource) permission to add it to PG's catalog? Then would you answer your volunteer "Wikisource said it's OK for us to redistribute that translation. You are now allowed to format the Wikisource file according to our rules." And PG license would be something like "Public domain as soon as you do not change this file. Produced by Wikisource".?
Finally, note that we don't have the personnel to handle frequent updates. For documents in flux, PG is likely not the right destination.
Yes. I guess that anyone who actually wants to add a distributed translation to PG's collection must perform some kind of a translation project management. The hard decision is, I think, to know when to stop, since translations can be changed _ad aeternum_. But even if the translation suffers deep changes, PG could always add another version. And if only a few changes are made, another edition. We can use PG's wiki itself to make such translations. Hopefully, it will be easier than having to relate with outer projects. (Unless there's a specially-designed-for-PG project, like PGDP).
And I'm curious, could you let me know what it is too?
Andrew
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Ricardo F Diogo wrote:
Hi. Is it possible to send PG a collaborative/"distribued" translation (made, for instance, at Wikisource), based on an already PG published eBook? (This wouldn't actually be a self-submitted translation, since Wikisource works based on GFDL... And the original PG etext is already copyright cleared...)
Ricardo
_______________________________________________ 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
-- «Vi de que noite é feita a luz do dia!» (Antero de Quental) Dê livros electrónicos ao Mundo. Ajude em http://www.pgdp.net e em http://dp.rastko.net
Ricardo F Diogo wrote:
Hi. Is it possible to send PG a collaborative/"distribued" translation (made, for instance, at Wikisource), based on an already PG published eBook? (This wouldn't actually be a self-submitted translation, since Wikisource works based on GFDL... And the original PG etext is already copyright cleared...)
That would require some license from the translators that would fit with PG. In several countries you have copyrights for translators. Regards, Walter
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Walter van Holst wrote:
Ricardo F Diogo wrote:
Hi. Is it possible to send PG a collaborative/"distribued" translation (made, for instance, at Wikisource), based on an already PG published eBook? (This wouldn't actually be a self-submitted translation, since Wikisource works based on GFDL... And the original PG etext is already copyright cleared...)
That would require some license from the translators that would fit with PG. In several countries you have copyrights for translators.
I don't think anything would be required if the translation were made for PG of a work PG already had published, as stated above. It would be implicit in the offering of the translations to PG that it was meant for distribution through the normal PG channels. However, if the translator did want works in translation copyrighted, and distributed though PG that way, this would be the same as with any copyrighted work, and we would need a permission letter stating that this was a copyrighted work for PG ditribution and we would use the normal copyright header/footer. Michael
Regards,
Walter
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
I would think that in some kind of collaberative translation project as discussed, it might be ideal to have a little notice, something along that lines of "By contributing, I agree that all my contributions are released to the public domain (or released under some CC licence, etc.)" For an example of a copyrighted translation of a work that came from PG, take a look at: Szachy i Warcaby: Droga do mistrzostwa http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/15201 A Polish translation of Edward Lasker's Chess and Checkers: The Way to Mastership Andrew On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Michael Hart wrote:
I don't think anything would be required if the translation were made for PG of a work PG already had published, as stated above. It would be implicit in the offering of the translations to PG that it was meant for distribution through the normal PG channels. However, if the translator did want works in translation copyrighted, and distributed though PG that way, this would be the same as with any copyrighted work, and we would need a permission letter stating that this was a copyrighted work for PG ditribution and we would use the normal copyright header/footer.
Michael
Michael Hart wrote:
I don't think anything would be required if the translation were made for PG of a work PG already had published, as stated above. It would be implicit in the offering of the translations to PG that it was meant for distribution through the normal PG channels. However, if the translator did want works
Yes, I would agree that there is a implicit licence. However, as soon as the translation would be printed etc., you might run into issues. I may be a nitpicker, but I'd prefer some clear understanding, for example a CC licence. Regards, Walter
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Michael Hart wrote:
I don't think anything would be required if the translation were made for PG of a work PG already had published, as stated above. It would be implicit in the offering of the translations to PG that it was meant for distribution through the normal PG channels.
Thing is, when those translations are made in websites that have a GFDL, like Wikisource, I suppose that in order to distribute them we'd have to add the GFDL itself, and PG would have to do the same (right?). But PG has its own licence, and GFDL says no clauses can be added.
However, if the translator did want works in translation copyrighted, and distributed though PG that way, this would be the same as with any copyrighted work, and we would need a permission letter
Yes, but for a massive/distributed/collaborative translation who would write that letter? Only those who want to keep copyright? Even if one in a hundred? And if s/he doesn't write it? 2006/7/12, Andrew Sly <sly@victoria.tc.ca>:
I would think that in some kind of collaberative translation project as discussed, it might be ideal to have a little notice, something along that lines of "By contributing, I agree that all my contributions are released to the public domain (or released under some CC licence, etc.)"
Under US law, if a website's general license is GFDL but for a given project we make such public domain notice, would it be effective? In some countries we can't release books to the public domain. What we could do would be something like "By contributing, you agree that all your contributions are released to the public domain. If that doesn't apply to your country, you agree that all your contributions can be freely distributed, changed... etc." 2006/7/12, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>:
Yes, I would agree that there is a implicit licence. However, as soon as the translation would be printed etc., you might run into issues. I may be a nitpicker, but I'd prefer some clear understanding, for example a CC licence.
Maybe an understanding between PG and other major projects like Wikimedia could make this issue a lot easier. (A default procedure for PG<-->Wikisource distributed/collaborative translations could save a lot of trouble and increase the number of translations.) -- «Vi de que noite é feita a luz do dia!» (Antero de Quental) Dê livros electrónicos ao Mundo. Ajude em http://www.pgdp.net e em http://dp.rastko.net
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Ricardo F Diogo wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Michael Hart wrote:
I don't think anything would be required if the translation were made for PG of a work PG already had published, as stated above. It would be implicit in the offering of the translations to PG that it was meant for distribution through the normal PG channels.
Thing is, when those translations are made in websites that have a GFDL, like Wikisource, I suppose that in order to distribute them we'd have to add the GFDL itself, and PG would have to do the same (right?). But PG has its own licence, and GFDL says no clauses can be added.
Yet one more reason to stay away from such licences, just more trouble. The PG licence works just fine for this, better than GPL, or others. Best to just make sure everyone working on such projects understands and approves the process before they start. Keep it simple. . . . Thanks!!! Give the world eBooks in 2006!!! Michael S. Hart Founder Project Gutenberg Blog at http://hart.pglaf.org
However, if the translator did want works in translation copyrighted, and distributed though PG that way, this would be the same as with any copyrighted work, and we would need a permission letter
Yes, but for a massive/distributed/collaborative translation who would write that letter? Only those who want to keep copyright? Even if one in a hundred? And if s/he doesn't write it?
2006/7/12, Andrew Sly <sly@victoria.tc.ca>:
I would think that in some kind of collaberative translation project as discussed, it might be ideal to have a little notice, something along that lines of "By contributing, I agree that all my contributions are released to the public domain (or released under some CC licence, etc.)"
Under US law, if a website's general license is GFDL but for a given project we make such public domain notice, would it be effective?
In some countries we can't release books to the public domain. What we could do would be something like "By contributing, you agree that all your contributions are released to the public domain. If that doesn't apply to your country, you agree that all your contributions can be freely distributed, changed... etc."
2006/7/12, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>:
Yes, I would agree that there is a implicit licence. However, as soon as the translation would be printed etc., you might run into issues. I may be a nitpicker, but I'd prefer some clear understanding, for example a CC licence.
Maybe an understanding between PG and other major projects like Wikimedia could make this issue a lot easier. (A default procedure for PG<-->Wikisource distributed/collaborative translations could save a lot of trouble and increase the number of translations.)
-- «Vi de que noite é feita a luz do dia!»
(Antero de Quental)
Dê livros electrónicos ao Mundo. Ajude em http://www.pgdp.net e em http://dp.rastko.net _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
participants (6)
-
Andrew Sly -
Greg Newby -
Juhana Sadeharju -
Michael Hart -
Ricardo F Diogo -
Walter van Holst