Andrew,
I'm not really wanting to get into the DSS discussion regarding legal matters
as I'm not a lawyer. However, there are some things I'd like to note:
At CrossWire we have a notion of what we are willing to include in our module
repository. There are several factors that play into this. I'm not sure I'm
articulating these well. I'm sure it is not complete:
If we can identify the person (or group) that claims stewardship of a work, we
want to work with them to include their effort in the CrossWire repository.
Regarding works that are largely academic or historical, we have found that
those involved are often thrilled to have their work more widely disseminated.
For those groups who view copyright and permission as necessary to have their
work in our repository, we want to show that we are good stewards of other
people's work, as well as theirs.
We don't claim that the modules in the CrossWire repository are there for
teaching, scholarship, criticism, comment, news reporting, research or even
nonprofit educational purposes, or for any other fair use. They are certainly
used for those purposes, but we cannot control their use.
We try to fairly evaluate claims of copyright of something that is in the
CrossWire repository. We will often pull a module while we examine the claims.
If a work is recent (as defined in US copyright law), we start with the
assumption that it is copyrighted unless we have incontrovertible evidence
otherwise.
Much of this is borne of experience of those that negotiate rights for modules
and who maintain many modules in the CrossWire repository. You have heard from
them in this thread.
Regarding, the DSS it has been recommended to open lines of communication with
the academics whose effort went into the translations. It certainly will build
good will on their part.
In His Service,
DM
On Nov 8, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Andrew Thule <thules...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matěj I have no intention.. here's why:
>
>
> The US definition of 'Fair Use':
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
>
> § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106a, the fair use of a
> copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
> phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
> such as criticism, comment, news reporting, TEACHING (including multiple
> copies for classroom use), SCHOLARSHIP, or RESEARCH, is NOT an infringement
> of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular
> case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
>
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including WHETHER SUCH USE IS OF A
> COMMERCIAL NATURE OR IS FOR NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES;
>
>
> Here's the Canadian definition of 'Fair Dealing'
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/index.html
>
> 29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not
> infringe copyright.
>
> 29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe
> copyright if the following are mentioned:
>
> (a) the source; and
>
> (b) if given in the source, the name of the
>
> (i) author, in the case of a work,
>
>
> In both cases it's clear this isn't a case where permission is needed.
> Moreover, with respect to 'Intellectual Property' both supreme courts in N.
> America (Canada and US) uphold the so-called 'scholars' convention' where
> once a text is published this implies consent on behalf of the author to
> allow further use of the text, and thus permission does not need to be
> obtained to use the text further, nor is there need to engage copyright.
>
> When Geza Vermes wrote "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English" as a book
> (which was a commercial venture) he certainly didn't approach each scroll
> translator (some of whom were already dead) and obtain consent, and the
> translations that weren't his constituted the bulk of the book.
>
> The expectation that I need to individually approach each separate
> translators (separately) and obtain consent is unwarranted and unrealistic
> and not necessary according to the body of Copyright law I'm familiar with.
> If it's not this way in Europe, I can only express my gratitude I don't live
> in Europe.
>
> ~A
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matěj Cepl <mc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 22:56 -0500, Andrew Thule wrote:
> > Clearly I have no commercial interest in offering this module to the list
> > for QA. Clearly the translators who have offered their work to DJD did so
> > in an academic / research framework (making them available to the broader
> > audience), and their translations are often reused and cited outside of
> > DJD. I am not passing off their work untransformed or as my own.
>
> Then you shall certainly has no problem to get their express consent
> with the publication of their work, right?
>
> Blessings,
>
> Matěj
>
> --
> http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl<at>ceplovi.cz
> GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
>
> See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas
> when the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows
> what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to
> avoid creating jobs.
> -- Dave Barry
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
