<div dir="ltr">I agree with Peter. The original work and the derivative work are separate cases.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:42 AM Peter von Kaehne <<a href="mailto:refdoc@gmx.net">refdoc@gmx.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 09:54 -0400, Tom Sullivan wrote:<br>
> First, take Matthew Henry's or Calvin's commentaries. They are way<br>
> out <br>
> of copyright to say the least. Now some publishers may add OCR text, <br>
> comments, footnotes, etc. These are copyrightable. Am I correct in <br>
> thinking that the original text itself could be safely made into a <br>
> module? Surely I am, for these modules are out there. Or am I<br>
> missing <br>
> something?<br>
<br>
Yes, the original text can be made a module, any later edition not,<br>
unless it without addition or editing simply copies an older public<br>
domain edition. <br>
<br>
With this in mind we will e.g. publish critical editions of the NT from<br>
Westcott Hort, but not the newest Aland. <br>
<br>
> Secondly, there are those who publish images of old works and <br>
> manuscripts. They claim copyright to the images in some cases. At<br>
> the <br>
> same time, if one does not publish the image, but only the bare<br>
> original <br>
> text, which is not copyrightable, that should be OK for a module. Am<br>
> I <br>
> correct? I should note that I have seen many cases of republished<br>
> old <br>
> works that have a copyright label, but it seems to me that they <br>
> copyright can only apply to the modern additions.<br>
<br>
While pictures are copyrightable, I presume using the pictures to<br>
transcribe the bare text would make a PD document. Our WLC is something<br>
of that kind. Someone somewhere put fingers on keyboard and typed the<br>
bare text in. <br>
<br>
> Thirdly, [..] <br>
> In other words, even if a module maker has a<br>
> legal <br>
> right, it may not be worth the risk in the view of the Sword<br>
> community. <br>
> Am I correct in my impression that this is a factor?<br>
<br>
Yes, this is a risk and yes this risk makes us double cautious. In<br>
general Bible publishers are kind folk and do not like to sue, but of<br>
course they could. FWIW the last time I had to pull a text due to<br>
erroneous publication as public domain I was uploading within days a<br>
new module with footnotes, crossreferences and the like, significantly<br>
improved upon the prior one which was text only. The Bible society in<br>
question had coupled their request to pull the old module with an offer<br>
of an improved text. But we still do not want to risk this. <br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
sword-devel mailing list: <a href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org" target="_blank">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page<br>
</blockquote></div>