Dead Sea Scrolls

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
48 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Dead Sea Scrolls

Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
Hi all;

Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel
Museum. Congratulations.

By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.

Regards,
emijrp

[1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/
[2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Neil Babbage
The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the
originals...

On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:

> Hi all;
>
> Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel
> Museum. Congratulations.
>
> By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
>
> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> [1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/
> [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

2011/9/26 Neil Babbage <[hidden email]>

> The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the
> originals...
>
> On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:
> > Hi all;
> >
> > Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
> Israel
> > Museum. Congratulations.
> >
> > By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
> >
> > Regards,
> > emijrp
> >
> > [1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/
> > [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Sarah Stierch-2
As the British Museum.

Hehehehe.

--Sarah (Stierch)

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
> copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
>
> 2011/9/26 Neil Babbage <[hidden email]>
>
> > The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the
> > originals...
> >
> > On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:
> > > Hi all;
> > >
> > > Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
> > Israel
> > > Museum. Congratulations.
> > >
> > > By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > emijrp
> > >
> > > [1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/
> > > [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Sarah Stierch-2
ASK THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

Damn. Joke fail.

-Sarah

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]>wrote:

> As the British Museum.
>
> Hehehehe.
>
> --Sarah (Stierch)
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
>> copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
>>
>> 2011/9/26 Neil Babbage <[hidden email]>
>>
>> > The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the
>> > originals...
>> >
>> > On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:
>> > > Hi all;
>> > >
>> > > Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
>> > Israel
>> > > Museum. Congratulations.
>> > >
>> > > By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > emijrp
>> > >
>> > > [1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/
>> > > [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > foundation-l mailing list
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>
>


--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Pedro Sanchez-2
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ASK THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
>
> Damn. Joke fail.
>
> -Sarah
>

Emijrp has a valid point.

We routinely dismiss this kind of bogus claims of copyright from museums

--
Pedro Sánchez
http://drini.mx
@combinatorica

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
>
>
>
> Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel
> Museum. Congratulations.


If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical texts,
then there is an argument that the author is still alive.... ;-)

(c) God, 2011
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
> copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other countries.

Claiming copyright is not the same as owning copyright.

Ray

> 2011/9/26 Neil Babbage<[hidden email]>
>
>> The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the
>> originals...
>>
>> On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:
>>> Hi all;
>>>
>>> Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
>> Israel
>>> Museum. Congratulations.
>>>
>>> By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> emijrp
>>>
>>> [1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/
>>> [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg
>>>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Anthony-73
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
>> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
>> copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
>
> The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other countries.

It's not even binding on other districts within the US.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?

Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for
claiming copyright.

2011/9/27 Anthony <[hidden email]>

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
> >> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
> >> copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
> >>
> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
> >
> > The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other
> countries.
>
> It's not even binding on other districts within the US.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Anthony-73
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
>
> Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for
> claiming copyright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Liam Wyatt
In reply to this post by Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
Wikimedia Israel and I met with the Israel Museum in the days immediately
following Wikimania. The specific purpose of that event was to set up a
'Wikipedian in Residence' position at their research centre, starting with a
project to create articles about Israeli artists in English and Hebrew
Wikipedias. This is described in the August "This Month in GLAM" report:
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/August_2011/Contents/Israel_report

Unsurprisingly, when we were giving our introduction presentation about what
Wikimedia does, what we stand for and how we operate, the issue of
Copyright-in-scans-of-Public-Domain-work was raised. Quite directly
actually. We informed the museum on no uncertain terms that Wikimedia's
policy is to follow the Bridgeman v. Corel precedent. They responded that it
is standard practice of the museum industry worldwide to claim copyright in
scans and that Bridgeman is not a precedent in Israel. All of which is true
and correct.

Which brings us back to the same position we have with every museum that
makes these copyright claims. We must stand by our principles and provide
our readers with access to digitised versions of public-domain cultural
heritage (such as the dead sea scrolls) when we have access to them. The
museums must realise this is a key point of both principle and law for us.
However, we must also try to politely stand by these principles in a way
that is not deliberately antagonistic towards the museum - especially
towards museums that are willing to work with us like the Israel Museum is.
We are on the same side when it comes to sharing knowledge and public
education, we just go about it in different ways.

We cannot expect museums to arrive at free-culture-compliant policies in one
day. It will take time to make them comfortable with it. In the mean time it
is our duty to demonstrate the value and advantages of sharing their content
whilst (politely but firmly) criticising the current policies. Maybe one day
our productive relationship with the Israel Museum will eventuate in them
*inviting* us to have an editing-day dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls and
will proactively *share* their own multimedia. Who knows? In the mean time,
if you would like to get involved with the Israel Museum project you can
read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/IMJ

-Liam

wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Harel Cain
We can have our fresh and promising Wikimedian-in-Residence there raise the
issue with museum staff. This news took us by surprise.
Apparently, the Google-IMJ project is quite a bit more than simple scanning
of the material, it involves more hypertextual contextual work.

Please, a more friendly and less sarcastic attitude will certainly help
here. The museum has been showing  a great deal of good faith in its GLAM
cooperation with us, and doesn't deserve this kind of attitude.

We certainly don't want to run into a collision course with the Museum over
this thing. The Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps the museum's most important
item on display, and a world-class cultural heritage item. Which means that
as much as it matters to us, it will matter greatly to the museum, this is
not some secondary work of art which they might turn a blind eye to
copyright infringement on. We (WMIL) will look into the matter.


Harel Cain
Secretary, Wikimedia Israel

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 02:40, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wikimedia Israel and I met with the Israel Museum in the days immediately
> following Wikimania. The specific purpose of that event was to set up a
> 'Wikipedian in Residence' position at their research centre, starting with a
> project to create articles about Israeli artists in English and Hebrew
> Wikipedias. This is described in the August "This Month in GLAM" report:
> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/August_2011/Contents/Israel_report
>
> Unsurprisingly, when we were giving our introduction presentation about
> what Wikimedia does, what we stand for and how we operate, the issue of
> Copyright-in-scans-of-Public-Domain-work was raised. Quite directly
> actually. We informed the museum on no uncertain terms that Wikimedia's
> policy is to follow the Bridgeman v. Corel precedent. They responded that it
> is standard practice of the museum industry worldwide to claim copyright in
> scans and that Bridgeman is not a precedent in Israel. All of which is true
> and correct.
>
> Which brings us back to the same position we have with every museum that
> makes these copyright claims. We must stand by our principles and provide
> our readers with access to digitised versions of public-domain cultural
> heritage (such as the dead sea scrolls) when we have access to them. The
> museums must realise this is a key point of both principle and law for us.
> However, we must also try to politely stand by these principles in a way
> that is not deliberately antagonistic towards the museum - especially
> towards museums that are willing to work with us like the Israel Museum is.
> We are on the same side when it comes to sharing knowledge and public
> education, we just go about it in different ways.
>
> We cannot expect museums to arrive at free-culture-compliant policies in
> one day. It will take time to make them comfortable with it. In the mean
> time it is our duty to demonstrate the value and advantages of sharing their
> content whilst (politely but firmly) criticising the current policies. Maybe
> one day our productive relationship with the Israel Museum will eventuate in
> them *inviting* us to have an editing-day dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls
> and will proactively *share* their own multimedia. Who knows? In the mean
> time, if you would like to get involved with the Israel Museum project you
> can read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/IMJ
>
> -Liam
>
> wittylama.com/blog
> Peace, love & metadata
>
>
>


--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Chris Keating
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel
>> Museum. Congratulations.
>
>
> If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical texts,
> then there is an argument that the author is still alive.... ;-)
>
> (c) God, 2011

;-)

Are there any jurisdictions where a religious texts have been refused
a copyright for reason of being divine?

There are a few legal cases about copyright of religious texts where
the copyright has been given to the 'medium' / 'channeler'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_religious_works

And there is the crown hold copyright on KJV, in perpetuity.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Billinghurst
In reply to this post by Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
Is the copyright claim on the scroll or the image.  I would expect the latter and they are
perfectly entitled to claim copyright on the image, the issue is that in various countries
it could be held true by the courts that it is in copyright, and in others it isn't.  
Truth in copyright claims is like truth in advertising. ;-)

Regards, Andrew


On 27 Sep 2011 at 0:57, emijrp wrote:

> OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
>
> Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for
> claiming copyright.
>
> 2011/9/27 Anthony <[hidden email]>
>
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
> > >> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
> > >> copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
> > >>
> > >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
> > >
> > > The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other
> > countries.
> >
> > It's not even binding on other districts within the US.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
Looks like you don't know the meaning of "common" word.

I also know how to paste cool links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_and_copyright_issues

2011/9/27 Anthony <[hidden email]>

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
> >
> > Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for
> > claiming copyright.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Ryan Kaldari-2
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had
more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme
Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common
law<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law> countries have moved
towards applying the "threshold of originality" standard and away from
the "sweat of the brow" standard.[1] Canada, for example, now largely
follows Feist. Even UK jurisprudence is gradually transitioning (and is
currently inconsistent). (Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat
based). The enactment of database rights throughout Europe has made this
transition easier, as even without sweat of the brow, database IP is now
protected (independent of copyright) throughout Europe.

Israel is both a common law and civil law country. I'm not aware of any
court cases in Israel that have addressed this issue so far. It will be
interesting to see how this issue plays out there. For the record,
though, I would never trust a museum to give me a accurate assessment of
the state of copyright law in a given country.

1. Gervais, Daniel J. (Summer 2002). "Feist Goes Global: A Comparative
Analysis of the Notion of Originality in Copyright Law". /Journal of the
Copyright Society of the U.S.A./ *49*: 949--981.

Ryan Kaldari

On 9/26/11 3:39 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
>>> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
>>> copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
>>>
>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
>> The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other countries.
> It's not even binding on other districts within the US.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Stephen Bain
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> (Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat
> based).

Well, we recently confirmed that computers can't have sweat on their
brows. So there's some progress!

http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/high-court-closes-book-on-telstra/531627.aspx

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Ryan Kaldari-2
Wow, it looks like I may be wrong. Very good news from Australia! Thanks
for the link.

Ryan Kaldari

On 9/27/11 11:57 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Ryan Kaldari<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> (Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat
>> based).
> Well, we recently confirmed that computers can't have sweat on their
> brows. So there's some progress!
>
> http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/high-court-closes-book-on-telstra/531627.aspx
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had
> more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme
> Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common
> law<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law> countries have moved
> towards applying the "threshold of originality" standard and away from
> the "sweat of the brow" standard.[1] Canada, for example, now largely
> follows Feist. Even UK jurisprudence is gradually transitioning (and is
> currently inconsistent).

UK requires originality.  But it's not at all clear that a photograph
of something out of copyright is unoriginal (even if that something is
"two dimensional").

By the common meaning of the word "original", I'd say the photograph
*is* original.  OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within
the US legal meaning of the term.  In any case, any copyright on the
photograph of course does not extend to the text.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123