[sword-devel] DSS (Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls based upon DJD translations)

Thu Nov 8 11:20:44 MST 2012

*DM*, I suspect you've hit upon the heart of the difference of opinion.
I'm not asking Crosswire to host any module.  I suspect that assumption is
at the heart of passion in the debate.  I have both a private and a public
repository and am capable of hosting the module myself.  Rather, I offered
it up for others to look at as many eyes are more likely to spot errors
than fewer.

Whether folks do or not take a look at it, and comment, it will continue to
be advanced as there is great utility and benefit in comparing modern
versions of the bible against the oldest fragments we have of the same text.

With respect to your comments about how Crosswire safeguards it's efforts
through careful scrutiny of Copyright, I fully support that with one prefix
- You can see from some of the comments here that there are some who have a
false understanding of how copyright works especially with respect to
scholarship, and what exemptions are permissible.  If we as a group, had to
choose an approach it's better to err on the side of

*Greg*, when an academic publishes research built upon someone else's
results, is he/she prohibited from publishing because that breaches your
concept of 'personal use'.  No.  You fail to appreciate that 1. I am
producing a derivative work under copyright law (according to the legal
definition) and 2. That because the source which I have derived the module
from is published academic work I am exempt by implicit fair use from
copyright considerations.

You assume 'personal use' means exactly one person's use.  This is
incorrect both in the US and Canada:

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1007051/supreme-court-ruling-on-copyright-a-victory-for-students

Briefly, in Canada one of the issues in the "Access Copyright" Supreme
Court challenge was whether 'personal use' meant one person, or an
aggregate.  Both in Canada (recently) and in the US 'personal use,
research, etc' has been shown to be not restricted to the person!

You're right - there is no need to argue because I understand the legal
framework I'm working with.  I understand my rights to produce derivative
works (google "H.H.O.O.Q."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.) I
understand Copyright and Fair Use, so at this point I'm not going to argue
futher against a false understanding of how this works.

This has never been about Crosswire.  That said, if Crosswire wants to
impose constraints far in excess of what the law demands - I'm ok with
that.  If members of this forum believe a module I've produce wouldn't cut
the mustard if submitted to Crosswire - I can live with that too.

God's peace.
~A

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:13 PM, DM Smith <dmsmith at crosswire.org> wrote:

> 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 <thulester at 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 <mcepl at 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 at 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 at 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 at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20121108/0ae0d344/attachment.html>