Re: [gutvol-d] Sweat of brow
----- Original Message -----
From Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> Date Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:45:33 -0800 To Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] Sweat of brow
Quaere; does "edition" or "typographical arrangement" copyright subsist in PG e-texts, in countries which recognize those types of copyright?
Short answer: we only try to follow US laws, and I'm unaware of anything like this provision in the US.
Yes, but even if there were, ***the copyright status of a PG work in another country*** is determined by the national law of that country, not of the US.
It might be this type of copyright (or whatever it might be called) would play a role in the EU and elsewhere...though in practice, if a physical book is old enough to be public domain based on author's death date, probably any typography copyright has also expired.
Yes, but that's missing the point of typographical or edition copyright: a new typographical arrangement or edition of the work, in that form, has a copyright attached to it. Not the work, the typographical arrangement or edition of it. PG is infringing neither the copyright in the work nor the copyright in the typographical arrangement; but the PG edition may have copyright status in a country that DOES recognize typographical arrangements or editions, subject to national treatment and shorter-term provisions in that country's national law.
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Wallace J.McLean wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> Date Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:45:33 -0800 To Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] Sweat of brow
Quaere; does "edition" or "typographical arrangement" copyright subsist in PG e-texts, in countries which recognize those types of copyright?
Short answer: we only try to follow US laws, and I'm unaware of anything like this provision in the US.
Yes, but even if there were, ***the copyright status of a PG work in another country*** is determined by the national law of that country, not of the US.
It might be this type of copyright (or whatever it might be called) would play a role in the EU and elsewhere...though in practice, if a physical book is old enough to be public domain based on author's death date, probably any typography copyright has also expired.
Yes, but that's missing the point of typographical or edition copyright: a new typographical arrangement or edition of the work, in that form, has a copyright attached to it. Not the work, the typographical arrangement or edition of it. PG is infringing neither the copyright in the work nor the copyright in the typographical arrangement; but the PG edition may have copyright status in a country that DOES recognize typographical arrangements or editions, subject to national treatment and shorter-term provisions in that country's national law.
If anyone really wants to argue that point, we can insert some more "legal fine print" to the effect that PG places all such possibly copyrightable material into the public domain in all counries. We should put all such potential legal claims to rest before any can even get started. Thanks!!! Give the world eBooks in 2006!!! Michael S. Hart Founder Project Gutenberg
Hi. sorry to nitpick here, and I admit this is out of my league, but wouldn't a plain text edition remove any and all fonts or typography anyway? Let's say that you harvest an html or pdf from a country where typography is still under copyright. It is converted to plain text to comply with PG standards, plus valid html etc. Now it gets imported back into the original country. Wouldn't it be legal because the fonts have been removed? Am I missing something obvious? I've followed the thread and understand it relates to google's idea of public domain, but it would seem to me that the copyrighted portion was removed (the typography) so it wouldn't matter. At 12:17 PM 3/5/2006, you wrote:
Yes, but that's missing the point of typographical or edition copyright: a new typographical arrangement or edition of the work, in that form, has a copyright attached to it. Not the work, the typographical arrangement or edition of it. PG is infringing neither the copyright in the work nor the copyright in the typographical arrangement; but the PG edition may have copyright status in a country that DOES recognize typographical arrangements or editions, subject to national treatment and shorter-term provisions in that country's national law.
Hi Tony. I believe that the matter under discussion was not a matter of the rights surrounding the source texts used to produce PG materials, but rather rights of the PG texts themselves. The argument (if I understood correctly) was that in some juristictions legal usage of PG texts might be restricted because the "typesetting" done in preparing the PG texts would qualify for certain protections on its own. This whole discussion reminds me of a few points I like to make when people start making overly broad, generalized statements about copyright laws: 1) Copyright is not just one right, but a bundle of rights. 2) It is treated on a national basis--that is every country has its own copyright laws and quirks about how those laws are applied. (and to what types of material, and what aspects of a given work, and with what definition of certain terms, etc., etc.) 3) The state of likely copyright status for an item in a given country at a given time can be affected by laws that were passed many previously; various amendments that have taken place over time, under pressure from various sources; international conventions the country may be a member of; precedence set by certain legal decisions, etc. Andrew On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Tony Baechler wrote:
Hi. sorry to nitpick here, and I admit this is out of my league, but wouldn't a plain text edition remove any and all fonts or typography anyway? Let's say that you harvest an html or pdf from a country where typography is still under copyright. It is converted to plain text to comply with PG standards, plus valid html etc. Now it gets imported back into the original country. Wouldn't it be legal because the fonts have been removed? Am I missing something obvious? I've followed the thread and understand it relates to google's idea of public domain, but it would seem to me that the copyrighted portion was removed (the typography) so it wouldn't matter.
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 00:44:17 -0800 (PST), Andrew Sly <sly@victoria.tc.ca> wrote: |Hi Tony. | |I believe that the matter under discussion was not a matter |of the rights surrounding the source texts used to produce PG |materials, but rather rights of the PG texts themselves. | |The argument (if I understood correctly) was that in some |juristictions legal usage of PG texts might be restricted |because the "typesetting" done in preparing the PG texts |would qualify for certain protections on its own. In which case IMO PG should put all its work explicitly into the public domain as MH suggested up thread. This is what I did with my Yorkshire Dialect work on my Web Site. It has been copied widely, (I can tell it is my work from the line breaks of poetry) including a Print on Demand outfit. As I work Pro Bono Publico I am happy to see my work reproduced anywhere. -- Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> "Intelligent Design?" my knees say *not*. "Intelligent Design?" my back says *not*. More like "Incompetent design". Sig (C) Copyright Public Domain
participants (5)
-
Andrew Sly -
Dave Fawthrop -
Michael Hart -
Tony Baechler -
Wallace J.McLean