Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

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

Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6064364.stm
Thanks,
    GerardM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

geni
On 10/19/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6064364.stm
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

No it isn't:

The materials provided on this website may be freely cited, downloaded
and printed for private study or distribution to students but
reposting on other websites, publishing, or other reproductions are
subject to written permission. Contact: Dr John van Wyhe. See Terms of
Use and Copyright declaration.



--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

James Hare
How can he hold the copyright to a work that's over a century old? This
isn't right. He doesn't deserve it. Anyone who takes works and decides to
sell it as a MASS PRODUCED PRODUCT doesn't deserve financial security.

On 10/19/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/19/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6064364.stm
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
> No it isn't:
>
> The materials provided on this website may be freely cited, downloaded
> and printed for private study or distribution to students but
> reposting on other websites, publishing, or other reproductions are
> subject to written permission. Contact: Dr John van Wyhe. See Terms of
> Use and Copyright declaration.
>
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

geni
On 10/19/06, James Hare <[hidden email]> wrote:
> How can he hold the copyright to a work that's over a century old?

I belive the president under english and welsh law is the Graves case.
The royal society is doing something simular with their scans of old
documents. Would you like me to send you a copy of the three pages of
conditions that the imperial war museam put on the use of copies of
their PD material?


>This
> isn't right. He doesn't deserve it. Anyone who takes works and decides to
> sell it as a MASS PRODUCED PRODUCT doesn't deserve financial security.

No evidence that anyone is selling it.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

James Hare
He's doing the next worst thing: taking a public domain revolutionary
publication and owning it. It's not even his.

On 10/19/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/19/06, James Hare <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > How can he hold the copyright to a work that's over a century old?
>
> I belive the president under english and welsh law is the Graves case.
> The royal society is doing something simular with their scans of old
> documents. Would you like me to send you a copy of the three pages of
> conditions that the imperial war museam put on the use of copies of
> their PD material?
>
>
> >This
> > isn't right. He doesn't deserve it. Anyone who takes works and decides
> to
> > sell it as a MASS PRODUCED PRODUCT doesn't deserve financial security.
>
> No evidence that anyone is selling it.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

geni
On 10/19/06, James Hare <[hidden email]> wrote:
> He's doing the next worst thing: taking a public domain revolutionary
> publication and owning it. It's not even his.

Under current english and welsh case law (which as far as I know
hasn't inbvolved an actual case in over 100 years) the copy is his. If
you can get hold of the originals you would under english and welsh
law be free to do what you like with them. However this is a copy and
he owns the copy (I'll probably contact him in a few days to find out
what his reasoning is but I will assume he is a bit busy right now).

Incerdental current US case law has come to the oposite conclusion.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

Birgitte_sb
The article does mention other language editons
(Danish, Russian).  So I just want to point out that
he very well may own the copyright on the
translations.  Most all websites do a poor job of
distingiushing the different copyrights of the variety
of material they host.  It is quite common for people
simply write the terms of use to cover the most
restrictive copyright material on the site.  I have
only seen *one* website that mentions the issue of
underlying PD material on their Terms of Use, despite
the fact that many websites contain these kinds of
material.  He may well think it is quite obvious that
anyone can take the PD material and do as they like.
On the other hand he may not.  But lets not jump to
conclusions here.


Birgitte SB

--- geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/19/06, James Hare <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > He's doing the next worst thing: taking a public
> domain revolutionary
> > publication and owning it. It's not even his.
>
> Under current english and welsh case law (which as
> far as I know
> hasn't inbvolved an actual case in over 100 years)
> the copy is his. If
> you can get hold of the originals you would under
> english and welsh
> law be free to do what you like with them. However
> this is a copy and
> he owns the copy (I'll probably contact him in a few
> days to find out
> what his reasoning is but I will assume he is a bit
> busy right now).
>
> Incerdental current US case law has come to the
> oposite conclusion.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

Andrew Gray
On 19/10/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The article does mention other language editons
> (Danish, Russian).  So I just want to point out that
> he very well may own the copyright on the
> translations.

Not to mention...

"Darwin Online features many newly transcribed or
never-before-published manuscripts"

Bingo, entirely legitimate "unpublished copyright" for parts of the
corpus. You can copyright Shakespeare (for a while) legally in most
jurisdictions if you happen to find an unpublished manuscript!

> Most all websites do a poor job of
> distingiushing the different copyrights of the variety
> of material they host.  It is quite common for people
> simply write the terms of use to cover the most
> restrictive copyright material on the site.

Indeed. "Please contact us before doing anything" is, on occasion,
"please get in touch with us so we can tell you whether or not X bit
is copyrighted".

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

>On 10/19/06, James Hare <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>How can he hold the copyright to a work that's over a century old?
>>    
>>
>I belive the president under english and welsh law is the Graves case.
>The royal society is doing something simular with their scans of old
>documents. Would you like me to send you a copy of the three pages of
>conditions that the imperial war museam put on the use of copies of
>their PD material?
>
Links would be enough.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

geni
On 10/20/06, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Links would be enough.
>
> Ec

collections.iwm.org.uk/upload/pdf/newlegal02a.pdf

In other bad news I've just discovered that the national coal board
collection was broken up in 1990s which will make tracking parts of it
down rather difficult.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

Ray Saintonge
geni wrote:

>On 10/20/06, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Links would be enough.
>>
>>Ec
>>    
>>
>collections.iwm.org.uk/upload/pdf/newlegal02a.pdf
>  
>
Thanks.  I wonder how much of it is enforceable.  Of course it only
relates to film and videos.  It does not appear to cover text or still
photographs.

For specific observations: the Museum copyrights in 3.1 would not
operate to restore copyrights that had already expired.  Section 3.6
assigning one's own copyrights to the IWM seems to be way over the top.

A common problem with a lot of these kinds of conditions is that they
are seldom enforced strictly, and contain more bark than bite.  Any real
argument always needs to involve specific circumstances.  To the extent
that it is a contract rather than a statute it cannot directly bind
third parties.  The contract may require you to bind end-users to the
contract, but if you fail to do so they can only go after you.  Any
actions that they may have against third parties will be limited to
those provided by the law alone, and not those allowed in the contract.  
This then becomes a matter of how much risk the person signing an
agreement with them is willing to accept.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

geni
On 10/21/06, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Thanks.  I wonder how much of it is enforceable.  Of course it only
> relates to film and videos.  It does not appear to cover text or still
> photographs.
>

The lisence for those is pretty much identical I just can'r find it on the web.

> For specific observations: the Museum copyrights in 3.1 would not
> operate to restore copyrights that had already expired.

Under UK law that may not be the case

>  Section 3.6
> assigning one's own copyrights to the IWM seems to be way over the top.
>

Considering how much you have to pay to get your hands on the material yes.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l