At 09:10 PM 11/2/2006, Gerard Hughes wrote:
So, I
can publish the words of a Shakespeare sonnet that I copied from
a
17th century volume, assuming that the very same words and
orthography appear in other extant copies of the
volume.
By this reading, no old work can be considered public
It is too bad that this dialogue has led to John C. throwing up his
hands in dismay and removing his website, saying that we have taken
all the fun out of it. As a historian and museum curator, I know how
hard it can be to follow these rules, but the final product is well
worth the effort.
Sara Schechner wrote on 11/2/06, 8:37 AM:
Historical materials may be protected by the estate of the original
creator, but more often they are under the jurisdiction of the
present institutional owner. This is true even in the cases where
multiples were produced or printed, as in say
Gerard Hughes' statement of the situation, at
least with respect to the United States, is the
very best I've seen anywhere. (I'd been thinking
of bringing up Bridgeman v. Corel but didn't have
the depth to do the whole thing!)
Only two minor disagreements from me, one fairly
well founded I
Open source - Open source-Open source - Open source-Open source -
And if anyone DARE! to reuse the text above...Be Warned!!
Should you be foolish enough to copy and reproduce this text
( [Open source] text 5 times - with a spaced hyphen on every other
one, trailing hyphen,
Aten Heliochronometers wrote on
11/2/06, 5:11 PM:
Open source - Open source-Open source - Open source-Open source -
And if anyone DARE! to reuse the text above...Be
Warned!!
Should you be foolish enough to copy and reproduce this text
( [Open source] text 5 times - with a
