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 16:40, 20 November 2022

81 bytes added ,  2 years ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 115: Line 115:
What was said above remains valid for the WAB transcriptions: insofar as creating a digital edition of a handwritten or typewritten text consists of a 1-to-1 substitution of some visual feature with the corresponding character or XML tag, the output is to be considered a faithtul reproduction of the original material and cannot, in and of itself, be copyrighted. However, two points must be stressed that were not relevant in the case we discussed previously, the example of the French translation of the ''Tractatus'', but are important here.
What was said above remains valid for the WAB transcriptions: insofar as creating a digital edition of a handwritten or typewritten text consists of a 1-to-1 substitution of some visual feature with the corresponding character or XML tag, the output is to be considered a faithtul reproduction of the original material and cannot, in and of itself, be copyrighted. However, two points must be stressed that were not relevant in the case we discussed previously, the example of the French translation of the ''Tractatus'', but are important here.


The first is that, even though the WAB’s transcriptions are produced in accordance with the strict rules based on the {{plainlink|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_Encoding_Initiative TEI Guidelines]}}, in many cases the transcriber was forced to propose what we may call an interpretation. This is not only because, unlike printed texts, Wittgenstein’s handwritten texts maybe difficult to decipher on the grounds of the quality of the author’s penmanship; it is also and perhaps most importantly because often more than one way of encoding the text was consistent with the rules.<ref>In A. Pichler, “{{plainlink|[http://wab.uib.no/alois/pichler-kirchb95a.pdf Transcriptions, Texts and Interpretation]}}”, in Kjell S. Johannessen and Tore Nordenstam (eds.), ''Culture and Value. Beiträge des 18. Internationalen Wittgenstein Symposiums. 13.-20. August 1995 Kirchberg am Wechsel'', ALWG, 1995, p. 695, retrieved 20 November 2022 ({{plainlink|[https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://wab.uib.no/alois/pichler-kirchb95a.pdf archived URL]}}, Alois Pichler argues that “transcription work is essentially selective and interpretational in nature”. While this may be too bold a wording and a claim so strong as to undermine the authority of the WAB’s transcriptions, in the same paper (pp. 693–694) he lists several good reasons why the WAB’s transcription cannot count as literatim transcriptions.</ref> Where there is room for this kind of uncertainty and an interpretation is needed to make up for the uncertainty, there is room for originality too.
The first is that, even though the WAB’s transcriptions are produced in accordance with the strict rules based on the {{plainlink|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_Encoding_Initiative TEI Guidelines]}}, in many cases the transcriber is forced to propose what we may call an interpretation. This is not only because, unlike printed texts, Wittgenstein’s handwritten texts maybe difficult to decipher on the grounds of the quality of the author’s penmanship; it is also and perhaps most importantly because very often more than one way of encoding the text is consistent with the rules.<ref>In A. Pichler, “{{plainlink|[http://wab.uib.no/alois/pichler-kirchb95a.pdf Transcriptions, Texts and Interpretation]}}”, in Kjell S. Johannessen and Tore Nordenstam (eds.), ''Culture and Value. Beiträge des 18. Internationalen Wittgenstein Symposiums. 13.-20. August 1995 Kirchberg am Wechsel'', ALWG, 1995, p. 695, retrieved 20 November 2022 ({{plainlink|[https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://wab.uib.no/alois/pichler-kirchb95a.pdf archived URL]}}, Alois Pichler argues that “transcription work is essentially selective and interpretational in nature”. While this may be too bold a wording and a claim so strong as to undermine the authority of the WAB’s transcriptions, in the same paper (pp. 693–694) he lists several good reasons why the WAB’s transcription cannot count as literatim transcriptions.</ref> Where there is room for this kind of uncertainty and an interpretation is needed to make up for the uncertainty, there is room for originality too.


The second is that the WAB’s transcriptions also make Wittgenstein’s implicit references to people and books explicit:<ref>See A. Pichler, ''Transcriptions, Texts and Interpretation'', p. 695.</ref> embedded in the XML file are also the full names of people Wittgenstein only mentions by surname or talks about without naming them at all; information about the books Wittgenstein discusses or quotes from without citing the full title; etc.; at least in some cases, a margin of uncertainty certaintly existed and the transcriber can then be said to have carried out an interpretation, and again where there is margin for interpretation (when the multiplicity of the text is not exactly the multiplicity needed for the transcription to be unequivocal), then there is room for originality too.
The second is that the WAB’s transcriptions also make Wittgenstein’s implicit references to people and books explicit:<ref>See A. Pichler, ''Transcriptions, Texts and Interpretation'', p. 695.</ref> embedded in the XML files are also the full names of people Wittgenstein only mentions by surname or talks about without naming them at all; information about the books Wittgenstein discusses or quotes from without citing the full title; etc.; here, again, the transcriber can then be said to be responsible for an interpretation, and, again, where there is a margin for interpretation (when the multiplicity of the text is not exactly the multiplicity that is needed for the transcription to be unequivocal), there is room for originality too.


When talking about the transcription of the French print edition of the ''Tractatus'', it was said that because the procedure was tantamount to copying, it did not generate a new copyright layer; when talking about the WAB transcriptions, it should be said that if or when the procedure was tantamount to copying, it did not generate a new copyright layer, but if or when it was not, it did. It could also be agreed to express this conclusion – which, incidentally, is an open conclusion, that does not claim to settle the question of the copyright status of the WAB’s XML files once and for all – by saying that, unlinke the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project’s digital edition of the Granger translation of the ''Tractatus'', the WAB’s XML files, or at least some of them, are more than just transcriptions.<ref>This claim is made explicitly by Pichler in A. Pichler, ''Transcriptions, Texts and Interpretation'', p. 690.</ref>
When talking about the transcription of the French print edition of the ''Tractatus'', it was said that because the procedure was tantamount to copying, it did not generate a new copyright layer; when talking about the WAB transcriptions, it should be said that if or when the procedure was tantamount to copying, it did not generate a new copyright layer, but if or when it was not, it did. It could also be agreed to express this conclusion – which, incidentally, is an open conclusion, that does not claim to settle the question of the copyright status of the WAB’s XML files once and for all – by saying that, unlinke the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project’s digital edition of the Granger translation of the ''Tractatus'', the WAB’s XML files, or at least some of them, are more than just transcriptions.<ref>This claim is made explicitly by Pichler in A. Pichler, ''Transcriptions, Texts and Interpretation'', p. 690.</ref>
Line 139: Line 139:
</div>
</div>


<p style="text-align: center; color: #54595d;">The first image is a scan of Wittgensein’s Ms-176,1v (from Wittgenstein Source). The second image is the corresponding WAB XML transcription. The <code><nowiki><del></del></nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki><add></add></nowiki></code> tags, which account for Wittgenstein’s substitution of ''ist'' with ''wird'', can be considered 1-to-1 substitutions of certain visual features with some conventional markup. On the other hand, the inclusion of a reference to a specific passage in Georg Lichtenberg’s ''Sudelbuch K'', which Wittgenstein does not cite explicitly, can be considered an actual addition and a ground for arguing that there is room for originality in the role played by the transcriber.</p>
<p style="text-align: center; color: #54595d;">The first image is a scan of Wittgensein’s Ms-176,1v (from Wittgenstein Source). The second image is the corresponding WAB XML transcription. The <code><nowiki><del></del></nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki><add></add></nowiki></code> tags, which account for Wittgenstein’s substitution of ''ist'' with ''wird'', can be considered a 1-to-1 substitutions of certain visual features with some conventional markup. On the other hand, the inclusion of a reference to a specific passage in Georg Lichtenberg’s ''Sudelbuch K'', which Wittgenstein does not cite explicitly, can be considered an addition, an interpretation, and a ground for arguing that there is room for originality in the role played by the transcriber.</p>


=== The authorship issue ===
=== The authorship issue ===
It should be added that, 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. This issue is related to but different from the main issue of this article and will only be briefly touched upon here.
It should be added that, 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. This issue is related to but different from the main issue of this article and will only be briefly touched upon here.


In some cases, for example that of the ''Philosophical Investigations'', Wittgenstein himself came very close to having the book ready for publication; in some others, for example that of ''On Certainty'', he marked a few sections of his notebooks in such a way as to make it clear that they belonged together and were meant to be published as a standalone work. In such instances, very little room was left for the editors to be original or creative, and it would be difficult to argue that what they did with Wittgenstein’s own writings in order to turn them into books generated a new layer of copyright.
Except for the ''Tractatus'', all of Wittgenstein’s philosophy ''books'' were published posthumously. In some cases, for example that of the ''Philosophical Investigations'', Wittgenstein himself came very close to having the book ready for the printing press; in some others, for example that of ''On Certainty'', he marked a few sections of his notebooks in such a way as to make it clear that they belonged together and were meant to be published as a standalone work. In such instances, very little room was left for the editors to be original or creative, and it would be difficult to argue that what they did with Wittgenstein’s own writings in order to turn them into books generated a new layer of copyright.


In yet other cases, however, the editors’ intervention was very significant in selecting and sorting Wittgenstein’s remarks while preparing them for publication, so that originality or creativity may be said to have been involved. The best example of this is probably G.H. von Wright’s editing of ''Culture and Value''. In such instances, 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.
In yet other cases, however, the editors’ intervention was very significant in selecting and sorting Wittgenstein’s remarks while preparing them for publication, so that originality or creativity may be said to have been involved. The best example of this is probably G.H. von Wright’s editing of ''Culture and Value''. In such instances, 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.
Retrieved from "https://www.wittgensteinproject.org/w/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/8212"