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 09:58, 16 July 2022

185 bytes added ,  2 years ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 37: Line 37:


== 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|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>
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>


In the second half of the 20th century, it was them who made (or sometimes delegated) the 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) the decisions about what to publish and how and it was them who had a right to receive royalties for the sales of books.
Line 115: Line 115:
One such restriction is what we call “moral rights”. Moral rights have to do with the author’s dignity as such and with their unique relationship with their work. The definition of moral rights also varies across jurisdictions, but most often they include the right of attribution and the prohibition that works be remixed in a way that negatively affects the author, their image, or their reputation. This wording may seem to forbid adding a moustache to a reproduction of ''Mona Lisa'' or creating a horror version of Winnie the Pooh, but in practice such things are widely accepted, as long as it’s clear that the parody or distortion is attributable to the remixer, and not to the author. Moral rights have no import as far as copyright and the public domain are concerned, and no financial import whatsoever. In some countries, they do not expire.
One such restriction is what we call “moral rights”. Moral rights have to do with the author’s dignity as such and with their unique relationship with their work. The definition of moral rights also varies across jurisdictions, but most often they include the right of attribution and the prohibition that works be remixed in a way that negatively affects the author, their image, or their reputation. This wording may seem to forbid adding a moustache to a reproduction of ''Mona Lisa'' or creating a horror version of Winnie the Pooh, but in practice such things are widely accepted, as long as it’s clear that the parody or distortion is attributable to the remixer, and not to the author. Moral rights have no import as far as copyright and the public domain are concerned, and no financial import whatsoever. In some countries, they do not expire.


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.
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.


Finally, even in the arid landscape of copyright law and harsh arena of the publishing business, politeness and ''bona fides'' are not without importance. It remains a good practice to inform the former copyright holders or the owners of the originals when a new edition or translation of a public-domain text is planned; and it is crucial that projects which share the same goal of improving the availability of a given cultural asset to the public are well coordinated, do not uselessly compete with each other, and on the contrary work together in a spirit of cooperation or, at least, complementarity. This is as good a place as any to say that if the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project failed to comply with these basic rules of manners it was not because of a slapdash attitude, but because of a failure to identify some of the many stakeholders.
Finally, even in the arid landscape of copyright law and harsh arena of the publishing business, politeness and ''bona fides'' are not without importance. It remains a good practice to inform the former copyright holders or the owners of the originals when a new edition or translation of a public-domain text is planned; and it is crucial that projects which share the same goal of improving the availability of a given cultural asset to the public are well coordinated, do not uselessly compete with each other, and on the contrary work together in a spirit of cooperation or, at least, complementarity. This is as good a place as any to say that if the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project failed to comply with these basic rules of manners it was not because of a slapdash attitude, but because of a failure to identify some of the many stakeholders.
Line 180: Line 180:


== The copyright status of Wittgenstein’s individual works ==
== The copyright status of Wittgenstein’s individual works ==
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.
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]”, in ''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.


For each work, the copyright status in the country of origin and in Italy will be described and explained. What is written about Italy can be considered to be valid for all countries where, as a general rule, copyright exires 70 years or fewer P.M.A.; however, since local exceptions may exist, generalisations should be made, so to speak, at one’s own risk. Occasionally, the copyright status in the United States will be discussed, as the US, despite not playing any special role from the point of view of the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project, are certainly, to this day, the centre of gravity of the web.
For each work, the copyright status in the country of origin and in Italy will be described and explained. What is written about Italy can be considered to be valid for all countries where, as a general rule, copyright exires 70 years or fewer P.M.A.; however, since local exceptions may exist, generalisations should be made, so to speak, at one’s own risk. Occasionally, the copyright status in the United States will be discussed, as the US, despite not playing any special role from the point of view of the Ludwig Wittgenstein Project, are certainly, to this day, the centre of gravity of the web.
Line 242: Line 242:
The ''Notes on Logic'' were first published in the United States of America, in the journal ''The Journal of Philosophy'', 54, 1957, pp. 230–245.
The ''Notes on Logic'' were first published in the United States of America, in the journal ''The Journal of Philosophy'', 54, 1957, pp. 230–245.


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.
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]}}, 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.


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. 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 non-free Creative Commons licence such as CC BY-NC: 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 translations of this text have been 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. 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 non-free Creative Commons licence such as CC BY-NC: 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 translations of this text have been published under CC BY-SA.
Retrieved from "https://www.wittgensteinproject.org/w/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/6473"