Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > On 10/4/11 8:16 AM, Anthony wrote: >> If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone >> is going to have a problem with that.  The copyright notice claims >> copyright "in the digital images of the manuscripts", not in the

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

Hi, Gerard. I supose you know what is paleography. And therefore you know that there is an intrinsic value in a raw manuscript, which provides information about schools of calligraphy, styles... an ancient manuscript is something like a painting masterpiece. All those things can't be transmitted b

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On 10/4/11 8:16 AM, Anthony wrote: > If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone > is going to have a problem with that. The copyright notice claims > copyright "in the digital images of the manuscripts", not in the text. Well, there doesn't appear to be any basis for a c

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

2011/10/4 Anthony : > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Anthony wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: >>> None of the >>> discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of >>> publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely on the >>> issue

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: >> None of the >> discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of >> publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely on the >> issue of originality. > > The Qim

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > On 10/3/11 4:36 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldari  wrote: >>> I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, >>> even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the bro

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On 10/3/11 4:36 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: >> I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, >> even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the brow" and >> requires a minimal degree of originality to clai

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, > even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the brow" and > requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2] Does it recognise date of fi

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On 10/03/11 11:34 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, > even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the brow" and > requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2] Then it is a question of fact. Do thes

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the brow" and requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2] The Israeli Supreme Court did declare that a transcription of the Dead Sea Scrolls w

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva >>  wrote: >>> In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. >>> Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva > wrote: >> In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. >> Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US. > Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers. > > W

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

Hoi, I am here in Los Angeles with Amir. We have discussed the dead sea scrolls extensively. We discussed transcription, fonts appropriate for such old texts. The use of the text. Do you believe that the suggestion for transcription was made by someone from the museum at Wikimania? That Amit is WM

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

I was not aggresive, but "sarcastic". But obviously, there are reasons for being furious. 2011/10/1 KIZU Naoko > Claiming copyright for religious works in use works also defense for > possible alteration the original publisher or editor may regard as > heretical. The similar happens in academia

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls - if someone was to sue our reusers

clause to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Art There are already ones in there for Mexico, Samoa, Côte d'Ivoire and a few others. WereSpielChequers > > -- > > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:36:43 -0400 > From: Anthony > Subject:

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: > In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. > Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US. Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers. WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling th

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

Claiming copyright for religious works in use works also defense for possible alteration the original publisher or editor may regard as heretical. The similar happens in academia too. I know a certain online text database based on a scanned PD works, but the publisher (a certain academic society) d

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

2011/9/27 Harel Cain : > We can have our fresh and promising Wikimedian-in-Residence there raise the > issue with museum staff. This news took us by surprise. > Apparently, the Google-IMJ project is quite a bit more than simple scanning > of the material, it involves more hypertextual contextual wo

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote: >> You need to reread what I said.  I was not making a pro-copyright argument. > > You need to rewrite what you wrote so that it reflects what you meant. > You were making a pro-copyright argument. Let me

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote: >> Why not?  What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to >> whatever this photograph is? > > An original photograph is a photograph that fixes an original image. You're just restating the quest

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

Facts and Opinions on the copyright can be added to the Wikipedia talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Google_scans -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.w

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: >> On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski >>> wrote: The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. >>> >>> Sure it does. Is there an

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski  wrote: >>> The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. >> >> Sure it does.  Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"? > > Ye

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: >> The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. > > Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"? Yes there is, and this isn't it. >> The photograph is not the first

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

2011/9/28 Anthony > Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the > lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the > built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw > image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may hav

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"? > The photograph is secondary, derivative and imitative. Yes. > The photograph is not the first instance.

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

There's an important point in what you say, though it is difficult to avoid sarcasm when feeling a Google spider creeping up one's back. In many of these cases there is the legal analysis and there is the pragmatic analysis They do not bear identical results. The legal analysis could conceiva

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 20:07 -0400, Anthony wrote: > UK requires originality. But it's not at all clear that a photograph > of something out of copyright is unoriginal (even if that something is > "two dimensional"). > > By the common meaning of the word "original", I'd say the photograph > *is* o

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had > more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme > Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common > law cou

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Anthony wrote: > By the common meaning of the word "original", I'd say the photograph > *is* original.  OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within > the US legal meaning of the term. I should add that, in my US analysis, I was making the assumption that t

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

Wow, it looks like I may be wrong. Very good news from Australia! Thanks for the link. Ryan Kaldari On 9/27/11 11:57 AM, Stephen Bain wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: >> (Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat >> based). > Well, we recently confirmed that comp

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > > (Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat > based). Well, we recently confirmed that computers can't have sweat on their brows. So there's some progress! http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/high-court-closes-book-on-telstra/531627.a

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common law countries have moved towards applying the "threshold of origi

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

Looks like you don't know the meaning of "common" word. I also know how to paste cool links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_and_copyright_issues 2011/9/27 Anthony > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp wrote: > > OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY? > > > > Come on. The point here is

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

Is the copyright claim on the scroll or the image. I would expect the latter and they are perfectly entitled to claim copyright on the image, the issue is that in various countries it could be held true by the courts that it is in copyright, and in others it isn't. Truth in copyright claims

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Chris Keating wrote: >> >> Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel >> Museum. Congratulations. > > > If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical texts, > then there is an argument that the author is still a

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

We can have our fresh and promising Wikimedian-in-Residence there raise the issue with museum staff. This news took us by surprise. Apparently, the Google-IMJ project is quite a bit more than simple scanning of the material, it involves more hypertextual contextual work. Please, a more friendly an

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

Wikimedia Israel and I met with the Israel Museum in the days immediately following Wikimania. The specific purpose of that event was to set up a 'Wikipedian in Residence' position at their research centre, starting with a project to create articles about Israeli artists in English and Hebrew Wikip

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY? Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for claiming copyright. 2011/9/27 Anthony > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge > wrote: > > On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote: > >> If originals don't have copyright, how can The

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp wrote: > OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY? > > Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for > claiming copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow ___ foundation-l mailing

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote: >> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any >> copyright for scans which lack originality?[1] >> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. > > Th

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote: > If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any > copyright for scans which lack originality?[1] > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

> > > > Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel > Museum. Congratulations. If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical texts, then there is an argument that the author is still alive ;-) (c) God, 2011

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote: > ASK THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY. > > Damn. Joke fail. > > -Sarah > Emijrp has a valid point. We routinely dismiss this kind of bogus claims of copyright from museums -- Pedro Sánchez http://drini.mx @combinatorica _

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

ASK THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY. Damn. Joke fail. -Sarah On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote: > As the British Museum. > > Hehehehe. > > --Sarah (Stierch) > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, emijrp wrote: > >> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum cla

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

As the British Museum. Hehehehe. --Sarah (Stierch) On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, emijrp wrote: > If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any > copyright for scans which lack originality?[1] > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. 2011/9/26 Neil Babbage > The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the > originals...

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the originals... On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote: > Hi all; > > Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel > Museum. Congratulations. > > By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel. > > Regards, > emijrp > > [1

[Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

Hi all; Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel Museum. Congratulations. By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel. Regards, emijrp [1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/ [2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg ___ fou