5,960
edits
Project:The copyright status of Wittgenstein’s works: Difference between revisions
Project:The copyright status of Wittgenstein’s works (view source)
Revision as of 17:52, 10 July 2022
, 2 years agono edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Thus, the aim of copyright is, among other things, to make creativity viable on the market by giving authors monopoly over the distribution of the copies of their works. By being the only authorised sellers of those works, albeit often with the intermediation of a publisher, or a label, etc., authors may be able to secure an income. | Thus, the aim of copyright is, among other things, to make creativity viable on the market by giving authors monopoly over the distribution of the copies of their works. By being the only authorised sellers of those works, albeit often with the intermediation of a publisher, or a label, etc., authors may be able to secure an income. | ||
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 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 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 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. | ||
| Line 37: | Line 35: | ||
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> | ||
[[File:Wittgenstein's testament.jpg|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|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.”]] | ||
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) decisions about what to publish and how and it was them who had a right to receive royalties for the sales of books. | ||
| Line 75: | Line 73: | ||
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|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 therefore the photograph does not meet the requirements for being copyrighted.]] | [[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 therefore 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. | ||