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

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

Revision as of 20:27, 8 August 2022

1,636 bytes added , 2 years ago

no edit summary

MLavazza

Bureaucrats, Editors, Interface administrators, Administrators

6,094

edits

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{header|print=1}}
-{{p center|By {{person link|Michele Lavazza}}<ref group="N">The author would like to thank Dr Jasmin Trächtler, Mr David Chandler, and Mr Javier Arango for reviewing this text.</ref>}}
+{{p center|By {{person link|Michele Lavazza}}<ref group="N">The author would like to thank Dr Jasmin Trächtler, Mr David Chandler, and Mr Javier Arango for reviewing this text. Additionally, he would like to extend sincere gratitude to Dr Nicolas Bell, the Librarian of Trinity College, who provided insightful comments on a draft of this essay.</ref>}}
 {{p center|31 July 2022}}
@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 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|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 is not eligible for copyright protection because it does not meet the requirements in terms of originality.]]
-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 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]}})<ref>It may be worth noting, incidentally, that some countries do have “typographical copyrigh”, i.e., laws that specifically protect typesetting and layout. The UK is one such country: see Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 15.</ref> or perhaps simply trying to discourage photocopying even public domain texts. As 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.
 Additional restrictions may make the picture more complicated.
@@ Line 207: / Line 207: @@
 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]}},<ref name="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 be assumed that the copyright on this text was renewed. Assuming that it was indeed renewed, then the duration of its copyright term is 95 years from the publication date, meaning that it will enter the public domain the US on 1 January 2053.<ref name="hirtle-chart" />
-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 (CC BY-NC). 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 Creative Commons licence: 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 Italian translation of this text was published under CC BY-SA.
+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 (CC BY-NC). 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 Creative Commons licence: 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, where the work is in the public domain because the copyright term for literary works is 70 years P.M.A.<ref>Italian copyright law only has a specific provision for posthumously published works if the posthumous work is first published after the expiry of copyright. In Wittgenstein’s case, this would only be relevant to writings unpublished as of 1 January 2022. See ''Legge 633/1941,'' article 31 and 85(3).</ref> 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 Italian translation of this text was published under CC BY-SA.
 === Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway ===
 The ''Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway'' were first published in Germany in the volume ''Schriften (Band 1. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Tagebücher 1914-1916. Philosophische Untersuchungen)'', edited by G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 1960, pp. 226–253.
-Their country of origin is Germany. This work is in the public domain there, as well as in Italy, because the copyright term for literary works in both countries is 70 years P.M.A.<ref>''Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte'', section 64.</ref> and the author died before 1952.
+Their country of origin is Germany. This work is in the public domain there, as well as in Italy, because the copyright term for literary works in both countries is 70 years P.M.A.<ref>''Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte'', section 64. German copyright law does not have specific provisions for posthumously published works.</ref> and the author died before 1952.
 === Tagebücher 1914-1916 ===
@@ Line 233: / Line 233: @@
 Additionally, it is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in 1926 and everything that was published before 1 January 1927 is now in the public domain in the US.
-The preface (''Geleitwort zum Wörterbuch für Volksschulen'') was first published in ''Wörterbuch für Volksschulen'', edited by A. Hübner, E. Leinfellner and W. Leinfellner, Schriften der Österreichischen Wittgensteingesellschaft, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna 1977, pp. {{Small caps|xxv}}–{{Small caps|xxxv}}. Its country of origin is Austria. This work is in the public domain there, as well as in Italy, because the copyright term for literary works in both countries is 70 years P.M.A.<ref>''Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht an Werken der Literatur und der Kunst und über verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz)'', BGBl. Nr. 111/1936 – <abbr>BGBl. I Nr. 63/2018, article 60.</abbr></ref> and the author died before 1952.
+The preface (''Geleitwort zum Wörterbuch für Volksschulen'') was first published in ''Wörterbuch für Volksschulen'', edited by A. Hübner, E. Leinfellner and W. Leinfellner, Schriften der Österreichischen Wittgensteingesellschaft, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna 1977, pp. {{Small caps|xxv}}–{{Small caps|xxxv}}. Its country of origin is Austria. This work is in the public domain there, as well as in Italy, because the copyright term for literary works in both countries is 70 years P.M.A.<ref>''Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht an Werken der Literatur und der Kunst und über verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz)'', BGBl. Nr. 111/1936 – <abbr>BGBl. I Nr. 63/2018, article 60. Austrian copyright law does not have specific provisions for posthumously published works.</abbr></ref> and the author died before 1952.
 === Some Remarks on Logical Form ===
@@ Line 250: / Line 250: @@
 The ''Bemerkungen über Frazers “The Golden Bough”'' were first published in the Dutch journal ''Synthese'', vol. 17, no. 3, Sep. 1967, pp. 233–253.
-Their country of origin are the Netherlands. This work is in the public domain there, as well as in Italy, because the copyright term for literary works in both countries is 70 years P.M.A.<ref>''Wet van 23 september 1912, houdende nieuwe regeling van het auteursrecht (Auteurswet 1912, tekst geldend op: 01-09-2017)'', articles 37 and 51.</ref> and the author died before 1952.
+Their country of origin are the Netherlands. This work is in the public domain there, as well as in Italy, because the copyright term for literary works in both countries is 70 years P.M.A.<ref>''Wet van 23 september 1912, houdende nieuwe regeling van het auteursrecht (Auteurswet 1912, tekst geldend op: 01-09-2017)'', articles 37(1). Dutch copyright law has a specific provision for posthumously published works, whereby posthumously published works that appeared before 1995 are copyrighted until 50 years after the publication date or until 70 years after the author’s death, whichever term expires the latest. In the case of the ''Bemerkungen über Frazers “The Golden Bough”'', this does not extend the copyright term beyond 1 January 2022. See ''Wet van 23 september 1912, houdende nieuwe regeling van het auteursrecht (Auteurswet 1912, tekst geldend op: 01-09-2017)'', articles 37 and 51.</ref> and the author died before 1952.
 === Blue and Brown Books ===