16 replies to this topic

[APsit190]

sorry Cobb I'm stealing your thread for a question

Josh

say you take a Greek lexicon and key it to Strongs numbering and replace Hebrew text with the Strongs numbers

substantial research goes into the keying process and Hebrew text replacement

would that qualify for a copyright

Hi Dave,
Essentially I think what Josh is talking about is where an edition has gone into the Public Domain, that by just making a few changes here and there in the text itself whether by changing the typesetting, the layout and generally by doing some housework on the original work does not qualify for it for copyright status.

A good example of something that was in the Public Domain and has reverted to Copyright is Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. This was reverted to Copyright because Thomas Nelson Publishers sought permission from the W.E. Vine Estate to update it by including works by Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr. And as a result of that the Copyright was restored by the GATT Treaty to W.E. Vine Copyright Ltd which Thomas Nelson Publishers probably bought and own.

As to the amount of work by Unger and White that has been added into Vine's Dictionary actually matters squat. Its the fact that "new" work from someone else has been added which makes the difference.

I have both a hard and electronic (e-Sword) copies of Vine's, and in the e-Sword edition, its noted to whom the authors are in the Information dialog. Its worth the read.

I hope this information is helpful and gives a clearer understanding.

Blessings,

[DSaw]

actually Josh explained it perfectly

[pfpeller]

A good example of something that was in the Public Domain and has reverted to Copyright is Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. This was reverted to Copyright because Thomas Nelson Publishers sought permission from the W.E. Vine Estate to update it by including works by Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr. And as a result of that the Copyright was restored by the GATT Treaty to W.E. Vine Copyright Ltd which Thomas Nelson Publishers probably bought and own.

Blessings,

I have to ask since I have this module posted:
http://www.biblesupp...ysword-version/

Is this original 1940 work still somehow under copyright. I search the renewal databases and it was not renewed.

Is there some strange treaty that allowed them to put the orginal back under copyright?

Peter

[BaptizedBeliever]

I have to ask since I have this module posted:
http://www.biblesupp...ysword-version/

Is this original 1940 work still somehow under copyright. I search the renewal databases and it was not renewed.

Is there some strange treaty that allowed them to put the orginal back under copyright?

Nah, the original is not under copyright, but the updated and expanded one is. If I made an updated and expanded version of Vine's original work, I guess I could copyright it as well.

I don't recall off the top of my head, but I think there are 6 or more different "updates" to the Strong's Concordance out there, all of which carry a modern copyright. How many different publishers added some introductory information and called it a new version? Some perhaps added extra words or corrected some errors.

You would be amazed how many songbooks contain the words "arrangement copyright 2012 by______" with the name of the songbook editor/compiler. He changes a few notes (I've seen as few as ONE note changed) in the tenor line, and then he slaps his name on it. Now, motives behind this, I think, are that if he makes it "his own" arrangement, he doesn't have to pay as much in royalties (just the royalties on the words, not the music). But interestingly enough, I've not seen it done on a song that is not under copyright.

Sorry, I'm just ranting and rambling today for some reason...perhaps it is the medicine I'm on for this infection. Yeah, we'll blame that.

Edited by Bradley S. Cobb, 15 June 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[APsit190]

Sorry, I'm just ranting and rambling today for some reason...perhaps it is the medicine I'm on for this infection. Yeah, we'll blame that.

Hey Brad, its always the meds, bro. You should see what the ones I take do to me.

Now I reckon that's gotta be pretty bad, mate. And sometimes it even gets worse than that. I dare not try to show you what its like. LOL

Blessings,

[jonathon]

If a public domain book exists, and someone re-edits/updates/corrects it, does it classify as a new work, or is the updated work still considered public domain?

The answer to that depends upon the extent of the editing and corrections.

USB-4 is under copyright, because it is a synthetic text, and as such, its content is "original" with the German Bible Society.

Technically, a transcription of, say, Codex Vaticanus, would not be copyrightable, under current US Copyright law. However, several organizations have argued, with various degrees of legal success, that their transcription is copyrightable, because of the ambiguity of the original text.

Some current editions of the Geneva Bible are under copyright, because the vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and syntax have been changed to reflect current conventions. These changes might by copyrightable.

Some organizations are very reasonable, in granting permission for their "updated" PD content to be reused. With other organizations, you'd have better luck living on Mars without oxygen tanks, than obtaining permission to reuse the PD content that they slapped a copyright onto.

Or is the recording a copyrighted version, based upon a public domain resource?

At least four different things that are copyrightable in audio:

• The lyrics;
• The orchestration;
• The arrangement;
• The performance;

In your example, the lyrics are PD. The orchestration probably is PD. The copyright status of the arrangement is unknown. The performance is probably under copyright. ℗ refers to the performance copyright, which usually would be the physical media that is distributed.

Does that give other comic companies the right to now take the stories done by this company and their modified versions of the heroes because the characters were public domain? Or has the fact that the company has modified them given them a copyrighted version of the characters?

This gets into the copyright of derivatives. Direct usage of Malibu Comics' characters probably is an infringement. Usage of the characters that Malibu Comics based their characters upon, probably is not an infringement. Depending upon content, the stories might infringe upon the copyright held by Malibu Comics, and/or other publishers.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

jonathon

[jonathon]

say you take a Greek lexicon and key it to Strongs numbering and replace Hebrew text with the Strongs numbers

substantial research goes into the keying process and Hebrew text replacement

would that qualify for a copyright

Depending upon how the process was done, the answer is "no", "yes", and 'maybe".

Starting with "NO".
I have a script that reads any Biblical text. It doesn't matter what language it is in.
It adds Strong Numbers for the Greek and Hebrew to the text.
Because this is a computer program, the addition is considered to be mechanical, and hence not copyrightable.

The "MAYBE" would be running a computer program against the Early Christian Writings, or Medieval Jewish Writings, and adding Strong's Numbers to those Greek and Hebrew texts. Because a computer did it, the odds are it wouldn't be copyrightable. Done manually, the odds are even that it would be copyrightable.

The "YES" would be when the process was manually done on the Early Christian Writings, or Medieval Jewish Writings, with additional footnotes explaining why each Strong Number was chosen.

One critical point that I've omitted, is where the work is published. I've been assuming the United States, which tends to consider that "sweat of the brow" does not equate to copyrightable. In Europe, "sweat of the brow" can equate to copyrightable. In the United States, facts are not copyrightable. In Europe, facts can be, under certain conditions, copyrightable. One could argue that Strong Numbers are "facts", and hence copyrightable, in specific circumstances, in Europe.

jonathon