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

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 {{plainlink|[http://wab.uib.no/index.page Wittgenstein Archives Bergen]}}’s <span class="plainlinks">[http://wab.uib.no/transform/wab.php?modus=opsjoner transcriptions of the ''Nachlass'']</span> 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. Beside the texts, the XML files created by the WAB include all the information which the originals themselves contain – emphases, strikeouts, alternatives, sidenotes, page breaks, and more – and allow the user to dynamically select which information set should be displayed. 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 a 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>See [[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>

<p style="text-align: center; color: #54595d;">The first image is a scan of Wittgensein’s MS-176,19v; the second is the corrisponding transcription with HTML markup (for example, the tag <code><nowiki><em></em></nowiki></code> is for emphasis; the third is the transcription as viewed in a web browser. The processes that lead from the first picture to the second (encoding) and from the second to the third (rendering) are both 1-to-1 subsitutions (images in the Tractarian sense).</p>

One such restriction is what we call “moral rights”. Moral rights have to do with the author’s dignity as such and with their unique relationship with their work. The definition of moral rights also varies across jurisdictions, but most often they include the right of attribution and the prohibition that works be remixed in a way that negatively affects the author, their image, or their reputation. This wording may seem to forbid adding a moustache to a reproduction of ''Mona Lisa'' or creating a horror version of Winnie the Pooh, but in practice such things are widely accepted, as long as it’s clear that the parody or distortion is attributable to the remixer, and not to the author. Moral rights have no import as far as copyright and the public domain are concerned, and no financial import whatsoever. In some countries, they do not expire.

Copyright law has changed remarkably little to meet the challenges of the digital age. The most significant innovation in the landscape of copyright law since the beginning of the 21st century has been the codification and the spread of Creative Commons licences, which will be briefly discussed below, in [[#The Creative Commons licences|§ The Creative Commons licences]]. Other than that, the world’s copyright system is not designed for the digital age, and often seems to be altogether unfit for it.

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 reusable (with reference to the relevant cases, the difference will be discussed in [[#The copyright status of Wittgenstein’s individual works|§ The copyright status of Wittgenstein’s individual works]]) ''in the country where the website is located and in their country of origin''.

This is, for example, the policy of the {{plainlink|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Wikimedia_projects 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 combinations of these freedoms and constraints generate the six licences, listed below from the “most free” to the “least free”:

In this section, we will apply the concepts described above in order to clarify the copyright status of Wittgenstein’s works.<ref>Information about first editions was taken from Alois Pichler, Michael A. R. Biggs, Sarah Anna Szeltner, “[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305935004_Bibliographie_der_deutsch-_und_englischsprachigen_Wittgenstein-Ausgaben Bibliographie Der Deutsch- Und Englischsprachigen Wittgenstein-Ausgaben]”, in ''Wittgenstein-Studien'', 2011 (updated 2019) ({{plainlink|[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305935004_Bibliographie_der_deutsch-_und_englischsprachigen_Wittgenstein-Ausgaben archived URL]}}).</ref> We will limit ourselves to those that have been published on the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project’s website<!-- or might be in the short-to-medium term-->, thereby excluding those texts where the editors may have to be counted as co-authors.

For each work, the copyright status in the country of origin and in Italy will be described and explained. What is written about Italy can be considered to be valid for all countries where, as a general rule, copyright exires 70 years or fewer P.M.A.; however, since local exceptions may exist,<ref>As an example, it is worthwile to briefly discuss an issue that often comes up in conversations between Wittgensteinians about copyright. In the UK, as a general rule, copyright exires 70 years or fewer P.M.A. However, texts that were unpublished as of the end of 1989 will be copyrighted until the end of 2039 regardless of the date of the author’s death. For furher information, see ''{{plainlink|[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term Copyright Notice: Duration of copyright (term)]}}'', UK Intellectual Property office, 15 January 2021, retrieved 16 July 2022 ({{plainlink|[https://web.archive.org/web/20220716101721/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term archived URL]}}). This does not affect any of the texts published on the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project’s website, but those among Wittgenstein’s manuscripts that were indeed unpublished as of 1989 are still copyrighted in the UK.</ref> generalisations should be made, so to speak, at one’s own risk. Occasionally, the copyright status in the United States will be discussed, as the US, despite not playing any special role from the point of view of the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project, are certainly, to this day, the centre of gravity of the web.

The information is valid and up to date in July 2022. Copyrights that are still standing will gradually expire in the coming years and decades.

Their country of origin is the US.<ref name="simultaneous">According to the Berne Convention, “The country of origin shall be considered to be: (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection [...]” (art. 5, par. 4). The definition of “simultaneous publication” is publication in multiple countries within 30 days (see art. 3, par. 4). We haven’t been able to prove that in the 1950s the ''Journal of Philosophy'' consistently reached its Canadian or European subscribers within 30 days of the publication in the US, but we haven’t been able to conclusively rule it out either. If it were possible to prove that this was the case in at least one country with a 50 or 70 years P.M.A. copyright term, then the ''Notes on Logic'' would count as simultaneously published in the US and in that country; therefore, per the Berne Convention, they would have that country as their country of origin; therefore, per the copyright laws of that country, they would now be in the public domain in their country of origin.</ref> In order to determine the copyright status of a work which has the US as its country of origin, knowledge of the date of the author’s death is not sufficient. Per the {{Plainlink|[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Hirtle_chart Hirtle chart]}}, the current copyright status of a work first published in the US between 1927 and 1964 depends on whether or not it was published with a copyright notice (which we should assume was the case) and, if it was, on whether or not copyright was renewed before its expiry, the term of which was then 28 years: if copyright was renewed, the text is still copyrighted in the US; if it wasn’t, the text is now in the public domain in the US. Lacking further information, it should not be assumed that the copyright on this text was not renewed. Assuming, on the contrary, that it was indeed renewed, it would be necessary to know the details of the renewal in order to determine until what date the text will be copyrighted; in what would be a worst case scenario from the point of view of free culture, that date would be calculated as follows: the text was published in 1957 and copyright was renewed at the latest possible moment before expiry, i.e., in 1957 + 28 = 1985; the second term, beginning in 1985, has a duration of 47 years, meaning that it will expire in 1985 + 47 = 2032 and the text will enter the public domain in the US on 1 January 2033.

However, in February 2017 Wittgenstein’s Ts-201a1 and Ts-201a2, containing the text of the ''Notes on Logic'', were released by the copyright holders – The Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge; Bertrand Russell Archives at McMaster University Library, Hamilton, Ontario; University of Bergen, Bergen – under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. Therefore, the text should be regarded as being in the public domain in countries where the copyright term is 70 years P.M.A. and licenced under CC BY-NC 4.0 International in the US. As was discussed above in this essay (see [[#Copyright in the age of the internet|§ Copyright in the age of the internet]]), a work being in the public domain in its country of origin is not a requirement for it to be freely reusable, remixable, etc. elsewhere, but rather a generally accepted good practice when the work is to be published on the internet; because of the internet’s lack of national boundaries, in other words, we consider it a good compromise to always make sure that we abide by the rules both of a work’s country of origin and of the country where the work is used, remixed, etc. The situation is similar when a work is not in the public domain in its country of origin but rather is licenced under the terms of a non-free Creative Commons licence such as CC BY-NC: we always want to abide by the rules both of a work’s country of origin and of the country where the work is used, remixed, etc. In this case, this means treating the work (Wittgenstein’s original text) as though it was also licenced under CC BY-NC in Italy. Now, CC BY-NC does not prohibit derivative works (for it does not include the “ND”, “NoDerivatives” clause), nor does it require derivative works to be licenced under the same terms (for it does not include the “SA”, “ShareAlike” clause). Therefore, the LWP’s translations of this text have been published under CC BY-SA.