Rules regarding reusing files from the Library?

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by rubeus

Well thats your opinion. Courts and lawyers in Germany do have another opinion.

Link please?

[rubeus]

https://www.ige.ch/urheberrecht/haeu...ic-domain.html

Ok thats swiss, and it is not in general. But this clearly points out, that it might be copyrighted even if you just do orthographic changes.

I know what i'm talking of. If you dont trust me: you dont have to. I dont care.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by rubeus

https://www.ige.ch/urheberrecht/haeu...ic-domain.html

Ok thats swiss, and it is not in general. But this clearly points out, that it might be copyrighted even if you just do orthographic changes.

I know what i'm talking of. If you dont trust me: you dont have to. I dont care.

Thanks. I wasn't doubting you, just interested. Would orthographic changes be so-called "kleine Münze"?


EDIT: I've checked the link, and the only section pertaining to changed orthography is - to my non-lawyer ears - as ambiguous as it gets. It only says that there might be copyright protection if the changes are big enough to give the new version "individuality." Do you have any examples where a reworking of orthography was granted copyright protection in a court of law?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by rubeus

https://www.ige.ch/urheberrecht/haeu...ic-domain.html

Ok thats swiss, and it is not in general. But this clearly points out, that it might be copyrighted even if you just do orthographic changes.

I know what i'm talking of. If you dont trust me: you dont have to. I dont care.

I can't tell which bit you mean. But (google translate) "Missing their individual character, the creation enjoys no copyright protection, is in the public domain." (original "Fehlt ihr der individuelle Charakter, geniesst die Schöpfung keinen Urheberrechtsschutz und gehört in die Public Domain") seems pretty clear to me.

If you think there's a bit in there that protects mechanical changes (e.g. orthographic updates) to a text, please quote it.

Ah, found it. (google translate) "Whether editions already enjoy (with adapted spelling or the correction of clerical errors) copyright protection can not generally evaluate. It is based on the fact here that the revision as a whole is essential that the new edition belongs individuality."

If that it the bit you meant, I don't think it means what you think it means.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Ah, found it. (google translate) "Whether editions already enjoy (with adapted spelling or the correction of clerical errors) copyright protection can not generally evaluate. It is based on the fact here that the revision as a whole is essential that the new edition belongs individuality."

If that it the bit you meant, I don't think it means what you think it means.

I think that's referring to typographical copyright, which generally requires a distinctive and creative appearance for the entire work.

[beachwanderer]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

... ambiguous as it gets. It only says that there might be copyright protection if the changes are big enough to give the new version "individuality."

Which brings us back to the test of the individual case. As in: Typography and layout won't matter too much in a novel but would in modern lyrics (and you don't have to cite Morgensterns Fisches Nachtgesang so see this).

Dr. Kreutzer did a nice piece some years back, called "Digitalisierung gemeinfreier Werke durch Bibliotheken"(german,3rd link from bottom) which offers some general insight but was/is not undisputed in all aspects.

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Do you have any examples where a reworking of orthography was granted copyright protection in a court of law?

Yes, that would be helpful.

[HarryT]

At the end of the day, as I said earlier, you can take a public domain work, modify it, and make any claim you wish regarding copyright on the resulting work. If someone chooses to ignore that claim and copy your work without your permission, it would then be down to a court to pass verdict on the validity of such a copyright claim. The cost of such a process would probably be prohibitive for most people.

[piperclassique]

And anyway, none of this nitpicking is likely to do anything other than discourage the OP from what looks like a good and worthwhile project.
Shame, really. I hope it happens anyway.
What did Michael Hart say? Something about breaking the bonds of ignorance and illiteracy. ?
Can anyone recall the exact wording?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by shalym

My children learned early on that "text speak" is not acceptable to me, any more than bad spelling/grammar is. It was a condition of them using the computer or phone to text/message/chat with their friends. Use proper grammar and spelling or lose the privilege.

Yup...they called me the "mean mommy"

Originally Posted by Apache

I text using complete sentences and punctuation.
Apache

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I do the same thing.

You are all whackos.

There's a reason why this is funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBEz...=youtu.be&t=53

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by piperclassique

And anyway, none of this nitpicking is likely to do anything other than discourage the OP from what looks like a good and worthwhile project.
Shame, really. I hope it happens anyway.
What did Michael Hart say? Something about breaking the bonds of ignorance and illiteracy. ?
Can anyone recall the exact wording?

A real pity isn't it? A lesson on how to obstruct the good and of no threat to anyone intentions of another by the use of pontification, obfuscation and exaggerated threat of the law if a foot put wrong.

You got the Hart quote correct, if I recall a purpose was to "...help break the bonds of ignorance and literacy"

[HarryT]

I answered the question in the second post of the thread. You can do anything you want with a book that's in the public domain.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I answered the question in the second post of the thread. You can do anything you want with a book that's in the public domain.

Indeed. The question was clearly answered in the positive before we started discussing details.

And I really don't see how discussing copyright could be criticized as obstruction, obfuscation etc. Particularly as the people doing the criticizing haven't contributed any books for the OP to download, while the people doing the discussing have.

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I answered the question in the second post of the thread. You can do anything you want with a book that's in the public domain.

Could you republish it with no changes, other than having a new copyright page, changing the author name, and claiming it to be an original work? Not a copyright violation, but fraud?

Just curious.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John F

Could you republish it with no changes, other than having a new copyright page, changing the author name, and claiming it to be an original work? Not a copyright violation, but fraud?

Just curious.

As far as copyright law is concerned, you can do whatever you want to with it. Anything. Anything at all. Including claiming your own copyright, although that claim would have no validity unless you had made creative changes. Many authors have incorporated passages from public domain works in their own books; that's absolutely fine. There's a whole industry revolving around reusing characters and situations from public domain books - eg writing new "Sherlock Holmes" stories.

Whether making such false claims would fall foul of other laws is an entirely unrelated matter. You would need to look at the laws relating to fraud and see if what you're proposing would constitute fraud. That's not an area I have any knowledge of.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by John F

Could you republish it with no changes, other than having a new copyright page, changing the author name, and claiming it to be an original work? Not a copyright violation, but fraud?

Just curious.

If I read this correctly that is plagiarism. Also known as stealing another's work and is illegal. Public Domain or not.