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 18:11, 10 July 2022

7 bytes removed ,  2 years ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:


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.
[[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 R. Rhees Miss G.E.M. Anscombe and Professor G.H. von Wright of Trinity College Cambridge All the copyright in all my unpublished writings and also the manuscripts and typescripts thereof to dispose of as they think best but subject to any claim by anybody else to the custody of the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 Rhees Miss Anscombe and Professor von Wright shall publish as many of my unpublished writings as they think fit but I do not wish them to incur expenses in publication which they do not expect to recoup out of royalties or other profits.”]]


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 34: Line 36:
== 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>
[[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 41: Line 41:
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, 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 who 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.




Line 57: Line 57:
The general rule here is quite simple. Obviously, both the creative work which is the starting point of a creative effort (as its material or its subject) and the creative work which is the output of such effort are copyrighted.
The general rule here is quite simple. Obviously, both the creative work which is the starting point of a creative effort (as its material or its subject) and the creative work which is the output of such effort are copyrighted.


In the case of a translation of a book the author of which is still alive, for example, the author is the original text’s copyright holder and may licence another party, typically a publisher, to sell a translation; the translator will be the translations copyright holder and may in turn licence another party, again the publisher, to sell the translation. The publisher of the translation will need to have agreements with, and usually pay, both the author and the translator.
In the case of a translation of a book the author of which is still alive, for example, the author is the original text’s copyright holder and may licence another party, typically a publisher, to sell a translation; the translator will be the translation’s copyright holder and may in turn licence another party, again the publisher, to sell the translation. The publisher of the translation will need to have agreements with, and usually pay, both the author and the translator.


When copyright on the original text expires, it becomes possible for anyone to translate it and publish the translation without having to ask for permission. However, extant translations are still copyrighted until ''their'' copyright expires. For example, even though Wittgenstein’s ''Tractatus'' is now in the public domain both in Europe and in the United States, the Pears-McGuinness translation will be copyrighted in Europe until the 70 years P.M.A. term expires for both Pears and McGuinness, that is, 1 January 2080, for Pears passed before McGuinness and McGuinness passed in 2019. On the other hand, since F.P. Ramsey died at a very young age, many years before Wittgenstein himself, his translation entered the public domain in Europe when the original did.
When copyright on the original text expires, it becomes possible for anyone to translate it and publish the translation without having to ask for permission. However, extant translations are still copyrighted until ''their'' copyright expires. For example, even though Wittgenstein’s ''Tractatus'' is now in the public domain both in Europe and in the United States, the Pears-McGuinness translation will be copyrighted in Europe until the 70 years P.M.A. term expires for both Pears and McGuinness, that is, 1 January 2090, for Pears passed before McGuinness and McGuinness passed in 2019. On the other hand, since F.P. Ramsey died at a very young age, many years before Wittgenstein himself, his translation entered the public domain in Europe when the original did.


Since, most often, the translator belongs to a younger generation than the author, “canonical” translations usually enter the public domain significantly later than the corresponding originals.
Since, most often, the translator belongs to a younger generation than the author, “canonical” translations usually enter the public domain significantly later than the corresponding originals.
Line 69: Line 69:
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, ''{{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>


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 – of making 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 paper original is transcribed into a rich text document whose markup 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>{{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>


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 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 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.
Retrieved from "https://www.wittgensteinproject.org/w/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/6447"