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

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|See [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]}}'', Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, retrieved 16 July 2002 ({{plainlink|[https://web.archive.org/web/20220716092558/https://www.onb.ac.at/bibliothek/sammlungen/handschriften-und-alte-drucke/this-is-the-last-will-of-me-ludwig-wittgenstein archived URL]}}).}}''</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 also true 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 typewritten notes taken or dictated by Wittgenstein are now in the public domain in Europe, the scans that are available on {{plainlink|[http://www.wittgensteinsource.org/ 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>For further details on this subject, see Thomas Margoni, ''{{plainlink|[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, p. 51.</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 {{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>

Another set of restrictions may arise from the fact that, even after copyright expires, ownership of the original specimen remains. Thus, for example, the Louvre may well forbid visitors to take photos of pictures – even though most of the works in the museum are out of copyright – simply because they have the authority to dictate the house rules; on the other hand, they have no authority to forbid us to freely share, modify and even sell the faithful reproductions of public-domain two-dimensional works that can be found on their very website. In the case of Wittgenstein, his originals have several different owners – the Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge; the Austrian National Library, Vienna; the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the Noord Hollands Archief, Haarlem; the Bertrand Russell Archives, McMaster University Library, Hamilton<ref>{{plainlink|[https://wittgenstein-initiative.com/unesco-certificate-and-nomination-form/ UNESCO Certificate and Nomination Form]}}, Wittgenstein Initiative, 25 January 2018, retrieved 16 July 2022 ({{plainlink|[https://web.archive.org/web/20220716093211/https://wittgenstein-initiative.com/unesco-certificate-and-nomination-form/ archived URL]}}).</ref> – but this also has no import as far as copyright and the public domain are concerned.

As far as copyright is concerned, international relations are still largely regulated by the Berne Convention,<ref>More information on the Berne Convention, as well as the full text of the document, can be found on the website of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization): {{plainlink|[https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/index.html Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works]}}.</ref> adopted in 1886 and last amended in 1979. This document establishes that signatory countries must grant copyright protection to all works that have another signatory country as their country of origin.

The notion of “country of origin” is a traditional concept that is defined by the Berne Convention itself. Even though its application is not always obvious when a work is first published in a digital format, for it may then be considered to be simultaneously published throughout the world,<ref>For further details on this subject, see Chris Dombkowski, “Simultaneous Internet Publication and the Berne Convention”, in ''Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal'', vol. 29, no. 4, 23 May 2013.</ref> determining the country of origin of a work that was first published in print is rather straightforward:

<div style="margin-left: 2em; color: #54595d;">Under the Convention, determining the country of origin of a published work is simply a matter of ascertaining where that work was first published or simultaneously published. The rules provide that for works first published in a country of the Union, the country of origin will be that country. For works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country of origin will be the country with the shortest term of protection […]<ref name="lawexplores">Brian Fitzgerald, Sampsung Xiaoxiang Shi, Cheryl Foong, and Kylie Pappalardo, “{{plainlink|[https://lawexplores.com/country-of-origin-and-internet-publication-applying-the-berne-convention-in-the-digital-age/ Country of Origin and Internet Publication: Applying the Berne Convention in the Digital Age]}}”, in Brian Fitzgerald and John Gilchrist (eds.), ''Copyright Perspectives'', Springer, 2015, retrieved 16 July 2022 ({{plainlink|[https://web.archive.org/web/20220716093426/https://lawexplores.com/country-of-origin-and-internet-publication-applying-the-berne-convention-in-the-digital-age/ archived URL]}}).</ref></div>

Devised by a team of legal experts led by Lawrence Lessig and first released in 2002, the six Creative Commons licences are based on the recognition of three freedoms and four constraints.<ref>For more information, see the relevant page of the Creative Commons website: {{plainlink|[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Creative Commons Licenses]}}.</ref> The three freedoms are:

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]”, 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.

Their country of origin is the US.<ref name="simultaneous">According to the Berne Convention, “for works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country of origin will be the country with the shortest term of protection”. The definition of “simultaneous publication” is publication in multiple countries within 30 days. 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.

 

 

{{about links}}