The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project

Project:The copyright status of Wittgenstein’s works: Difference between revisions

Project page Discussion

Project:The copyright status of Wittgenstein’s works (view source)

Revision as of 20:10, 13 July 2022

6 bytes removed ,  2 years ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 18: Line 18:
The difference between intellectual property and the property of material goods, however, has implications that reach beyond the relative ease of breaching the former compared to breaching the latter. The very power of culture consists, in fact, in the possibility for words, pictures, music, etc. to be reproduced with relatively little effort and, most importantly, ''without thereby consuming, diminishing, or getting any closer to the depletion of the “source”''. As the saying – often misattributed to George Bernard Shaw – goes: “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas”. The benefit that society as a whole gains from the exchange and the transmission of ideas has long been clear. Therefore, a limitation always accompanies the affirmation of the author’s rights over their works: eventually, copyright expires, and the works become public property. Unlike a house, then, which can be handed over from parents to children by way of inheritance for, in principle, endless generations, the intellectual property of a creative work expires two to three generations after the author’s death, depending on the country or territory.
The difference between intellectual property and the property of material goods, however, has implications that reach beyond the relative ease of breaching the former compared to breaching the latter. The very power of culture consists, in fact, in the possibility for words, pictures, music, etc. to be reproduced with relatively little effort and, most importantly, ''without thereby consuming, diminishing, or getting any closer to the depletion of the “source”''. As the saying – often misattributed to George Bernard Shaw – goes: “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas”. The benefit that society as a whole gains from the exchange and the transmission of ideas has long been clear. Therefore, a limitation always accompanies the affirmation of the author’s rights over their works: eventually, copyright expires, and the works become public property. Unlike a house, then, which can be handed over from parents to children by way of inheritance for, in principle, endless generations, the intellectual property of a creative work expires two to three generations after the author’s death, depending on the country or territory.


The rationale for the finite duration of the copyright term is related precisely to the concept, firstly, that the circulation of ideas by way of replicating works of art (and fiction, and nonfiction…) is in the interest of the human community, and not only in the interest of the author and their heirs; and, secondly, that if such circulation is free not only in the sense of freedom, but also in that of gratuity, the interest of the human spirit will be much better served.
The rationale for the finite duration of the copyright term is related precisely to the concept, firstly, that the circulation of ideas through the replication of works of art (and fiction, and nonfiction…) is in the interest of the human community, and not only in the interest of the author and their heirs; and, secondly, that if such circulation is free not only in the sense of freedom, but also in that of gratuity, the interest of the human spirit will be much better served.


[[File:Wittgenstein's testament.jpg|thumb|right|link=|Wittgenstein's testament. “I give to Mr. R. Rhees Miss G.E.M. Anscombe and Professor G.H. von Wright of Trinity College Cambridge All the copyright in all my unpublished writings and also the manuscripts and typescripts thereof to dispose of as they think best but subject to any claim by anybody else to the custody of the manuscripts and typescripts. I intend and desire that Mr. Rhees Miss Anscombe and Professor von Wright shall publish as many of my unpublished writings as they think fit but I do not wish them to incur expenses in publication which they do not expect to recoup out of royalties or other profits.”]]
[[File:Wittgenstein's testament.jpg|thumb|right|Wittgenstein's testament. “I give to Mr. R. Rhees Miss G.E.M. Anscombe and Professor G.H. von Wright of Trinity College Cambridge All the copyright in all my unpublished writings and also the manuscripts and typescripts thereof to dispose of as they think best but subject to any claim by anybody else to the custody of the manuscripts and typescripts. I intend and desire that Mr. Rhees Miss Anscombe and Professor von Wright shall publish as many of my unpublished writings as they think fit but I do not wish them to incur expenses in publication which they do not expect to recoup out of royalties or other profits.”]]


The logic of copyright and of its term being limited by design, thus, is as follows. Authors should be able to exploit their works financially (in order perhaps, depending on one’s broader moral view, to reward their genius, but also to enable them to keep doing what they do while letting others benefit from their creativity as well). Sooner or later, however, the circulation of such works should stop being subject to the author’s consent or their family’s (in order for the public to fully enjoy the works without limitations of sorts, and especially without having to pay to do so).
The logic of copyright and of its term being limited by design, thus, is as follows. Authors should be able to exploit their works financially (in order perhaps, depending on one’s broader moral view, to reward their genius, but also to enable them to keep doing what they do while letting others benefit from their creativity as well). Sooner or later, however, the circulation of such works should stop being subject to the author’s consent or their family’s (in order for the public to fully enjoy the works without limitations of sorts, and especially without having to pay to do so).
Line 28: Line 28:
* upon the birth of a piece of creative work, the right to copy it, distribute the copies, sell them, modify the original and disseminate the modified version (a translation, a remix, etc.) belongs exclusively to the author – all rights are reserved;
* upon the birth of a piece of creative work, the right to copy it, distribute the copies, sell them, modify the original and disseminate the modified version (a translation, a remix, etc.) belongs exclusively to the author – all rights are reserved;
* when the author dies, the abovementioned rights belong, equally exclusively, to the author’s legal heirs for a period of time that, generally speaking, may vary from 30 to 100 years (but is usually 50 or 70);
* when the author dies, the abovementioned rights belong, equally exclusively, to the author’s legal heirs for a period of time that, generally speaking, may vary from 30 to 100 years (but is usually 50 or 70);
* then, when the copyright term expires, the work enters the public domain, which means that anyone is legally entitled to copy, distribute, sell, modify the work; those who were previously the exclusive holders of the rights are not entitled to any privilege any longer and have, in fact, the same status as all other members of the public; no rights are reserved, except for, in some cases, the few “soft” provisions we call “moral rights” (see below, [[#Contracts, constraints unrelated to intellectual property, and politeness|§ Contracts, constraints unrelated to intellectual property, and politeness]]).
* then, when the copyright term expires, the work enters the public domain, which means that anyone is legally entitled to copy it, distribute it, sell it, modify it; those who were previously the exclusive holders of the rights are not entitled to any privilege any longer and have, in fact, the same status as all other members of the public; no rights are reserved, except for, in some cases, the few “soft” provisions we call “moral rights” (see below, [[#Contracts, constraints unrelated to intellectual property, and politeness|§ Contracts, constraints unrelated to intellectual property, and politeness]]).


The public domain is meant to be a guarantee that culture is not forever subject to the monetary laws of buying and selling. In spite of local differences in copyright legislation, it is remarkable that in every last country on Earth the copyright term is finite, and ''all'' jurisdictions share the moral understanding that it is right for the public to eventually be free to do anything they want with a piece of writing, of music, of visual art, etc.
The public domain is meant to be a guarantee that culture is not forever subject to the monetary laws of buying and selling. In spite of local differences in copyright legislation, it is remarkable that in every last country on Earth the copyright term is finite, and ''all'' jurisdictions share the moral understanding that it is right for the public to eventually be free to do anything they want with a piece of writing, of music, of visual art, etc.


The public domain is as important a feature of intellectual property laws as copyright. Attempts at restricting the public’s right to access and use works that are in the public domain should be considered as illegal as accessing and using copyrighted material without permission. Of course, it is much mor common for publishers to sue for copyright infringement than for individuals or non-for-profits to sue for what we could call “public domain infringement”. This is due to an obvious imbalance in power, that is, financial resources, knowledge, and organisation, but the argument is not any less urgent for this reason.<ref>The very concept of “public domain infringement”, obviously formed in analogy with “copyright infringement”, was coined by the author of this essay. Merely as a proof that the broad moral framework of our culture warrants the analogy, consider articles 27 (“Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author”) and 19 (“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”) of the {{plainlink|[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights]}}.</ref>
The public domain is as important a feature of intellectual property laws as copyright. Attempts at restricting the public’s right to access and use works that are in the public domain should be considered as illegal as accessing and using copyrighted material without permission. Of course, it is much more common for publishers to sue for copyright infringement than for individuals or non-for-profits to sue for what we could call “public domain infringement”. This is due to an obvious imbalance in power, that is, financial resources, knowledge, and organisation, but the argument is not any less urgent for this reason.<ref>The very concept of “public domain infringement”, obviously formed in analogy with “copyright infringement”, was coined by the author of this essay. Merely as a proof that the broad moral framework of our culture warrants the analogy, consider articles 27 (“Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author”) and 19 (“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”) of the {{plainlink|[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights]}}.</ref>


== A very short history of the rights on Wittgenstein’s writings ==
== A very short history of the rights on Wittgenstein’s writings ==
Ludwig Wittgenstein died on 29 April 1951. In his las will and testament, he appointed G.E.M. Anscombe, R. Rhees and G.H. von Wright as his literary heirs. It is them, thus, who became the copyright holders for Wittgenstein’s writings.<ref>''{{plainlink|[https://www.onb.ac.at/bibliothek/sammlungen/handschriften-und-alte-drucke/this-is-the-last-will-of-me-ludwig-wittgenstein This is the last will of me Ludwig Wittgenstein]}}''</ref>
Ludwig Wittgenstein died on 29 April 1951. In his las will and testament, he appointed G.E.M. Anscombe, R. Rhees and G.H. von Wright as his literary heirs. It is them, thus, who became the copyright holders for Wittgenstein’s writings.<ref>''{{plainlink|[https://www.onb.ac.at/bibliothek/sammlungen/handschriften-und-alte-drucke/this-is-the-last-will-of-me-ludwig-wittgenstein This is the last will of me Ludwig Wittgenstein]}}''</ref>


In the second half of the 20th century, it was them who made (or sometimes delegated) decisions about what to publish and how and it was them who had a right to receive royalties for the sales of books.
In the second half of the 20th century, it was them who made (or sometimes delegated) the decisions about what to publish and how and it was them who had a right to receive royalties for the sales of books.


Rhees died in 1989, Anscombe in 2001, and Von Wright in 2003. Although the author of this essay was unable to find a detailed account of their wills and testaments, it is clear that, after their deaths, the copyright holders for Wittgenstein’s writings became The Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge. This leads us to think that it was Rhees’s, Anscombe’s, and Von Wright’s joint will to elect Trinity as the heir to the intellectual property of Wittgenstein’s writings.
Rhees died in 1989, Anscombe in 2001, and Von Wright in 2003. Although the author of this essay was unable to find a detailed account of their wills and testaments, it is clear that, after their deaths, the copyright holders for Wittgenstein’s writings became The Master and Fellows of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. This leads us to think that it was Rhees’s, Anscombe’s, and Von Wright’s joint will to elect Trinity as the heir to the intellectual property of Wittgenstein’s writings.


29 April 2021 was the 70th anniversary of Wittgenstein’s death and on 1 January 2022 Wittgenstein’s Writings entered the public domain in those countries where the copyright term is 70 years P.M.A. (''post mortem auctoris'', i.e., “after the author’s death”). This includes the European Union, most of Africa, Asia and Oceania, most Latin American Countries and Canada. In some countries, for example the United States, some of Wittgenstein’s works are still copyrighted. There, it is still Trinity that counts as the copyright holder.
29 April 2021 was the 70th anniversary of Wittgenstein’s death and on 1 January 2022 Wittgenstein’s writings entered the public domain in those countries where the copyright term is 70 years P.M.A. (''post mortem auctoris'', i.e., “after the author’s death”). This includes the European Union, most of Africa, Asia and Oceania, most Latin American Countries and Canada. In some countries, for example the United States, some of Wittgenstein’s works are still copyrighted. There, it is still Trinity that counts as the copyright holder.




<div class="custom-desktop-only">[[File:World copyright-terms nokey.svg|600px|center|link=]] [[file:World copyright-terms key wide plain.svg|600px|center|link=]]</div>
<div class="custom-desktop-only">[[File:World copyright-terms nokey.svg|600px|center]] [[file:World copyright-terms key wide plain.svg|600px|center]]</div>
<div class="custom-mobile-only">[[File:World copyright-terms nokey.svg|thumb|center|link=]] [[file:World copyright-terms key wide plain.svg|thumb|center|link=]]</div>
<div class="custom-mobile-only">[[File:World copyright-terms nokey.svg|thumb|center]] [[file:World copyright-terms key wide plain.svg|thumb|center]]</div>




Line 67: Line 67:
We said, in the first paragraph, that copyright protects creative works as opposed to mere mechanical labour. This is also true when we talk about a creative work being the subject or the material for another creative work. For example, the photograph of a three-dimensional object is universally considered a creative work, because of the choices that need to be made in terms of angle, framing, composition, lighting, focus, focal length, shutter speed, aperture, etc. Even though the Nike of Samothrace is clearly in the public domain, each of the photographs of it that are created daily are protected by copyright.
We said, in the first paragraph, that copyright protects creative works as opposed to mere mechanical labour. This is also true when we talk about a creative work being the subject or the material for another creative work. For example, the photograph of a three-dimensional object is universally considered a creative work, because of the choices that need to be made in terms of angle, framing, composition, lighting, focus, focal length, shutter speed, aperture, etc. Even though the Nike of Samothrace is clearly in the public domain, each of the photographs of it that are created daily are protected by copyright.


On the other hand, photocopies and scans are universally considered to be purely mechanical reproductions of two-dimensional objects, and therefore do not entail the formation of a new layer of copyright. This is true even for faithful, frontal photographs of paintings or other two-dimensional works of art. The example here will be much more relevant: since the original handwritten and typescript notes taken by Wittgenstein are now in the public domain in Europe, the scans that are available on Wittgenstein Source are now in the public domain too. No matter how expensive or time-consuming scanning thousands of pages was, such effort was not of a creative nature, and copyright laws do not cover its output.<ref>Thomas Margoni, ''{{plainlinks|[https://web.archive.org/web/20190512145439/http://outofcopyright.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/digitisation_cultural_heritage-thomas-margoni.pdf The digitisation of cultural heritage: originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs]}}'', Institute for Information Law (IViR), Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam.</ref>
On the other hand, photocopies and scans are universally considered to be purely mechanical reproductions of two-dimensional objects, and therefore do not entail the formation of a new layer of copyright. This is true even for faithful, frontal photographs of paintings or other two-dimensional works of art. The example here will be much more relevant: since the original handwritten and typescript notes taken by Wittgenstein are now in the public domain in Europe, the scans that are available on Wittgenstein Source are now in the public domain too. No matter how expensive or time-consuming scanning thousands of pages was, such effort was not of a creative nature, and copyright laws do not cover its output.<ref>Thomas Margoni, ''{{plainlink|[https://web.archive.org/web/20190512145439/http://outofcopyright.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/digitisation_cultural_heritage-thomas-margoni.pdf The digitisation of cultural heritage: originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs]}}'', Institute for Information Law (IViR), Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam.</ref>


A verbatim transcription configures the same scenario. As no creativity is involved, for example, an HTML document that reproduces the text and the formatting of one of Wittgenstein’s manuscripts is not of itself eligible for copyright protection and is in the public domain if the original is. In the context of Wittgenstein studies, the case of the Wittgenstein Archives Bergen’s transcription of the ''Nachlass'' must be discussed explicitly. Under the direction of Profs Claus Huitfeldt and Alois Pichler and over more than 30 years, the WAB has rendered the scholarly community an invaluable service by providing excellent, extremely rich transcriptions of Wittgenstein’s manuscripts and typescripts that, at the moment of this writing, can be accessed online at no cost. The XML files created by the WAB include all the information which the originals themselves contain – emphases, strikeouts, alternatives, sidenotes, page breaks, and much more – and make it possible for the user to select which information set should be dynamically displayed.<ref>{{plainlinks|[http://wab.uib.no/index.page The Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen (WAB)]}}</ref> It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this resource, and the generosity behind the decision – by Trinity and the WAB – to make it available on the internet for free should be duly stressed. The effort that went into making and proofreading the transcriptions should also be recognised. However, this effort cannot count as a creative one. A transcription, even or rather ''especially'' a rich transcription that reproduces all the features of a handwritten or typewritten document, is a 1-to-1 substitution of some visual feature with the corresponding XML tag. If multiple people were to transcribe the same text, the output would have to be absolutely identical: this is enough reason to consider the activity as a non-creative activity. The same argument, however, can perhaps be expressed in an even more striking way: once a handwritten or typewritten original is transcribed into a rich text document the markup of which incorporates all the information that was present in the original itself, this can (and must, for this is the whole point of the procedure) then be rendered as a document, for example a web page, that visually reproduces all the features of the original; in other words, the visual features of the text (emphases, additions, deletions, etc.) can be transformed into markup and markup can be transformed back into visual features; to put it in a very Wittgensteinian way,<ref>[[Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (English)#4.04|''Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'', 4.04]].</ref> the original and the transcription have the same “mathematical multiplicity”, they are in a strong sense interchangeable, and the latter does not add anything creative to the former, no matter how painstakingly long and accurate the procedure is. (Within the frame of this argument, it also becomes even clearer why translations, on the other hand, are and should be considered creative works: there is no way a translation can be “translated back” into the original text: if one tried to reconstruct the German text of the ''Tractatus'' by translating an English version back into German, the result would obviously be very different than the actual original.)<ref>Of course, the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project has no intention to duplicate the WAB’s excellent work and even less to overshadow it. The scope of our project is, and is meant to be, complementary to theirs, in that we aim at making edited ''Leseausgaben'' available as opposed to “raw” source materials and our target audience is the general public as opposed to the academics. Se the following section, [[#Contracts, constraints unrelated to intellectual property, and politeness|§ Contracts, constraints unrelated to intellectual property, and politeness]], for a brief comment on “politeness” in this context.</ref>
A verbatim transcription configures the same scenario. As no creativity is involved, for example, an HTML document that reproduces the text and the formatting of one of Wittgenstein’s manuscripts is not of itself eligible for copyright protection and is in the public domain if the original is. In the context of Wittgenstein studies, the case of the Wittgenstein Archives Bergen’s transcription of the ''Nachlass'' must be discussed explicitly. Under the direction of Profs Claus Huitfeldt and Alois Pichler and over more than 30 years, the WAB has rendered the scholarly community an invaluable service by providing excellent, extremely rich transcriptions of Wittgenstein’s manuscripts and typescripts that, at the moment of this writing, can be accessed online at no cost. The XML files created by the WAB include all the information which the originals themselves contain – emphases, strikeouts, alternatives, sidenotes, page breaks, and much more – and make it possible for the user to select which information set should be dynamically displayed.<ref>{{plainlink|[http://wab.uib.no/index.page The Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen (WAB)]}}</ref> It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this resource, and the generosity behind the decision – by Trinity and the WAB – to make it available on the internet for free should be duly stressed. The effort that went into making and proofreading the transcriptions should also be recognised. However, this effort cannot count as a creative one. A transcription, even or rather ''especially'' a rich transcription that reproduces all the features of a handwritten or typewritten document, is a 1-to-1 substitution of some visual feature with the corresponding XML tag. If multiple people were to transcribe the same text, the output would have to be absolutely identical: this is enough reason to consider the activity as a non-creative activity. The same argument, however, can perhaps be expressed in an even more striking way: once a handwritten or typewritten original is transcribed into a rich text document the markup of which incorporates all the information that was present in the original itself, this can (and must, for this is the whole point of the procedure) then be rendered as a document, for example a web page, that visually reproduces all the features of the original; in other words, the visual features of the text (emphases, additions, deletions, etc.) can be transformed into markup and markup can be transformed back into visual features; to put it in a very Wittgensteinian way,<ref>[[Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (English)#4.04|''Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'', 4.04]].</ref> the original and the transcription have the same “mathematical multiplicity”, they are in a strong sense interchangeable, and the latter does not add anything creative to the former, no matter how painstakingly long and accurate the procedure is. (Within the frame of this argument, it also becomes even clearer why translations, on the other hand, are and should be considered creative works: there is no way a translation can be “translated back” into the original text: if one tried to reconstruct the German text of the ''Tractatus'' by translating an English version back into German, the result would obviously be very different than the actual original.)<ref>Of course, the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project has no intention to duplicate the WAB’s excellent work and even less to overshadow it. The scope of our project is, and is meant to be, complementary to theirs, in that we aim at making edited ''Leseausgaben'' available as opposed to “raw” source materials and our target audience is the general public as opposed to the academics. Se the following section, [[#Contracts, constraints unrelated to intellectual property, and politeness|§ Contracts, constraints unrelated to intellectual property, and politeness]], for a brief comment on “politeness” in this context.</ref>


From the point of view of Wittgenstein scholarship, the issue of copyright layers is particularly thorny when it comes to assessing the impact of the editors’ work on the very authorship of a published book. In those cases where the editors’ intervention was very significant in selecting and sorting Wittgenstein’s remarks while preparing them for publication, the editors may have to be considered co-authors, thereby extending the copyright term on a work beyond the 70-year period after Wittgenstein’s death. Given the uncertainty of this matter, the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project opted for a cautious approach, which is presented in [[Project:Why are some of Wittgenstein’s texts missing from this website?|a separate essay]].
From the point of view of Wittgenstein scholarship, the issue of copyright layers is particularly thorny when it comes to assessing the impact of the editors’ work on the very authorship of a published book. In those cases where the editors’ intervention was very significant in selecting and sorting Wittgenstein’s remarks while preparing them for publication, the editors may have to be considered co-authors, thereby extending the copyright term on a work beyond the 70-year period after Wittgenstein’s death. Given the uncertainty of this matter, the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project opted for a cautious approach, which is presented in [[Project:Why are some of Wittgenstein’s texts missing from this website?|a separate essay]].
Line 78: Line 78:
Regardless of the agreements that copyright holders and publishers may have, however, the expiry of the copyright term is always a sufficient condition for the work to be in the public domain. No contract has the power to extend copyright protection beyond the term defined by the local legislation.
Regardless of the agreements that copyright holders and publishers may have, however, the expiry of the copyright term is always a sufficient condition for the work to be in the public domain. No contract has the power to extend copyright protection beyond the term defined by the local legislation.


[[File:Example_of_abusive_copyrighting.jpg|thumb|left|link=|Example of an unwarranted and abusive apposition of the “©” sign on the back of a postcard sold by a museum. The postcard features a faithful reproduction of ''{{plainlink|[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gustave_Moreau_Salom%C3%A9_1876.jpg Salomé dansant]}}'', a painting by Gustave Moreau (1826–1898). The painting is in the public domain everywhere in the world, and the photograph does not meet the requirements for being copyrighted.]]
[[File:Example_of_abusive_copyrighting.jpg|thumb|left|Example of an unwarranted and abusive apposition of the “©” sign on the back of a postcard sold by a museum. The postcard features a faithful reproduction of ''{{plainlink|[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gustave_Moreau_Salom%C3%A9_1876.jpg Salomé dansant]}}'', a painting by Gustave Moreau (1826–1898). The painting is in the public domain everywhere in the world, and the photograph does not meet the requirements for being copyrighted.]]


This, as well as the general nature of the public domain itself, is sometimes the subject of misunderstandings because publishers tend to print the copyright symbol “©” or another copyright notice on all books they produce, regardless of the copyright status of the text, possibly hoping to protect the typesetting and layout (which, however, are usually below the {{plainlink|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality threshold of originality]}}), or perhaps simply trying to discourage photocopying even public domain texts. As I mentioned above ([[#Introduction. The purpose of copyright and the public domain|§ Introduction. The purpose of copyright and the public domain]]), however, adding copyright symbols where they do not belong should be regarded as illegal.
This, as well as the general nature of the public domain itself, is sometimes the subject of misunderstandings because publishers tend to print the copyright symbol “©” or another copyright notice on all books they produce, regardless of the copyright status of the text, possibly hoping to protect the typesetting and layout (which, however, are usually below the {{plainlink|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality threshold of originality]}}), or perhaps simply trying to discourage photocopying even public domain texts. As I mentioned above ([[#Introduction. The purpose of copyright and the public domain|§ Introduction. The purpose of copyright and the public domain]]), however, adding copyright symbols where they do not belong should be regarded as illegal.
Line 107: Line 107:
There is no definite answer to this question, precisely because there is no international treaty with provisions that take into account the contemporary state of information technology. A viable solution, however, is that of respecting two requirements while publishing works on the internet: for them to be in the public domain, or at least (with reference to the relevant cases, the difference will be discussed in § The copyright status of Wittgenstein’s individual works) legally reusable ''in the country where the website is located and in their country of origin''.
There is no definite answer to this question, precisely because there is no international treaty with provisions that take into account the contemporary state of information technology. A viable solution, however, is that of respecting two requirements while publishing works on the internet: for them to be in the public domain, or at least (with reference to the relevant cases, the difference will be discussed in § The copyright status of Wittgenstein’s individual works) legally reusable ''in the country where the website is located and in their country of origin''.


This is, for example, the policy of Wikimedia projects,<ref>For a rich overview of the policy adopted on Wikimedia Commons, the Wikimedia repository of images, scanned texts and other multimedia files, see the {{plainlinks|[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory Copyright rules by territory] page.}}</ref> which have earned a very respectable position among those who are trying to challenge the traditional closed culture system while abiding by its rules.
This is, for example, the policy of Wikimedia projects,<ref>For a rich overview of the policy adopted on Wikimedia Commons, the Wikimedia repository of images, scanned texts and other multimedia files, see the {{plainlink|[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory Copyright rules by territory] page.}}</ref> which have earned a very respectable position among those who are trying to challenge the traditional closed culture system while abiding by its rules.


The notion of “country of origin” is a traditional concept that is defined by the Berne Convention itself. Even though its application is not always obvious when a work is first published in a digital format, for it may then be considered to be simultaneously published throughout the world,<ref name="lawexplores">Brian Fitzgerald, Sampsung Xiaoxiang Shi, Cheryl Foong, and Kylie Pappalardo, “{{plainlink|[https://lawexplores.com/country-of-origin-and-internet-publication-applying-the-berne-convention-in-the-digital-age/ Country of Origin and Internet Publication: Applying the Berne Convention in the Digital Age]}}”, in Brian Fitzgerald and John Gilchrist (eds.), ''Copyright Perspectives'', Springer 2015.</ref> determining the country of origin of a work that was first published in print is rather straightforward:
The notion of “country of origin” is a traditional concept that is defined by the Berne Convention itself. Even though its application is not always obvious when a work is first published in a digital format, for it may then be considered to be simultaneously published throughout the world,<ref name="lawexplores">Brian Fitzgerald, Sampsung Xiaoxiang Shi, Cheryl Foong, and Kylie Pappalardo, “{{plainlink|[https://lawexplores.com/country-of-origin-and-internet-publication-applying-the-berne-convention-in-the-digital-age/ Country of Origin and Internet Publication: Applying the Berne Convention in the Digital Age]}}”, in Brian Fitzgerald and John Gilchrist (eds.), ''Copyright Perspectives'', Springer 2015.</ref> determining the country of origin of a work that was first published in print is rather straightforward:


<div style="margin-left: 2em; color: #333333;">Under the Convention, determining the country of origin of a published work is simply a matter of ascertaining where that work was first published or simultaneously published. The rules provide that for works first published in a country of the Union, the country of origin will be that country. For works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country of origin will be the country with the shortest term of protection […]<ref name="lawexplores"/></div>
<div style="margin-left: 2em; color: #54595d;">Under the Convention, determining the country of origin of a published work is simply a matter of ascertaining where that work was first published or simultaneously published. The rules provide that for works first published in a country of the Union, the country of origin will be that country. For works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country of origin will be the country with the shortest term of protection […]<ref name="lawexplores"/></div>


The question should then be answered: what does it mean for a website to be located in a certain country? The question is rather complex for high-traffic sites which, to better serve requests, have servers in many locations and for sites which are operated by multinational companies; it is, however, quite simple in the case of the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project, since our servers are located in Italy and the owner of the website is both Italian and based in Italy. The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project therefore operates under Italian laws and European Union regulations.
The question should then be answered: what does it mean for a website to be located in a certain country? The question is rather complex for high-traffic sites which, to better serve requests, have servers in many locations and for sites which are operated by multinational companies; it is, however, quite simple in the case of the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project, since our servers are located in Italy and the owner of the website is both Italian and based in Italy. The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project therefore operates under Italian laws and European Union regulations.
Retrieved from "https://www.wittgensteinproject.org/w/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/6459"