Copyright of transcribed manuscripts

[Von]

I want to translate an English manuscript from the 16th century (anonymous author) into Afrikaans. The copy that I have access to is a complete transcript that was recently published as part of a book. How does copyright work in this instance? I've contacted the publishers as well, but still waiting for a response.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

They did the work to transcribe it so they own that work by copyright. There may be also permissions they had from the MS owner etc. involved.

 

[Von]

Mmmm... that's what I thought. Thanks!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

If you get ahold of a copy of the MS and make your own transcription and translate it, no problem. But it depends on if you can get a facsimile and if the owner puts any restrictions. Libraries I've worked with when I have asked say if you make a transcription it is yours to do with as you wish.

 

[Logan]

This is a bit tricky, but as I understand copyright law, the "sweat of the brow" argument doesn't hold water. If you take a public domain work and transcribe it, reprint it, etc., it is very questionable whether you can copyright it. I've seen no evidence supporting that is the case (and lots against).

Footnotes, preface, or abridgments etc. are different. But just because you typed up a public domain work doesn't mean you own the work and people can't copy it or publish it (even your work) in a different form. I know Chris has a very passionately different opinion on this!

But see for example,
https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Brow_Copyright

And the Supreme Court case on Feist Publications.

Now, that being said, just because something is legal may not necessarily mean it's moral, and a certain amount of respect for someone's effort is certainly in line.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

A manuscript is not necessarily public domain. It was never published. There are a lot of factors here but while an old book may be questionable, I don't see that here without knowing the specific material in question. Again, it depends on who owns it, what they say, etc.

This is a bit tricky, but as I understand copyright law, the "sweat of the brow" argument doesn't hold water. If you take a public domain work and transcribe it, reprint it, etc., it is very questionable whether you can copyright it. I've seen no evidence supporting that is the case (and lots against).

Footnotes, preface, or abridgments etc. are different. But just because you typed up a public domain work doesn't mean you own the work and people can't copy it or publish it (even your work) in a different form. I know Chris has a very passionately different opinion on this!

But see for example,
https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Brow_Copyright

And the Supreme Court case on Feist Publications.

Now, that being said, just because something is legal may not necessarily mean it's moral, and a certain amount of respect for someone's effort is certainly in line.

 

[Wayne]

It is my understanding that the "sweat of the brow" argument holds water under English law, but not under American.

 

[Edward]

How does copyright work in this instance?

If you are in South Africa, and are translating it into Afrikaans, the odds of finding someone here on the PB who can give you an answer you can rely on is probably going to be mighty slim. Your primary concern should be to look at the RSA copyright law.

South Africa does appear to have joined the Berne Convention and be a signatory to WIPO, so the same general principles will probably apply, but you should consult with a South African lawyer familiar with copyright law in that country.

 

[Edward]

A manuscript is not necessarily public domain.

If it's more than 120 years old, it probably doesn't have copyright protection in the U.S. if the author is unknown; if known it should be the life of the author plus 70 years. Sixteenth Century should be safe.

As for a mere transcription, that also would probably not have copyright protection. A compilation which constitutes original creative work (original expression) might be protected, and any original work could be protected.

An original translation would, on the other hand, be subject to protection.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm saying you need the owner's permission. Are you saying if it needs the owner's permission, and it is published, anyone can take and reissue the transcription without either the publisher's and the owner's permission?
Or take another example, which is the sermon of James Durham's I transcribed. The MS is owned by the Folger and I paid for a copy in high resolution. The told me a transcription was "mine" to do with as I wished when I told them I would be publishing it. They then put it online so presumably anyone now can transcribe it. Now, a transcription is pretty close to translation work (what with old Scottish words, 17th century Secretary Hand, interpolating abbreviations, speculation, etc.). It also has the conventions used to denote page breaks, line breaks etc. You are telling me all of that work is public domain? Why is a translation protected and not something that involves all the work in a transcription? How, if this were conceivable with my material, is the transcriber/editor/researcher to reap anything if it is immediately ripe for the picking upon publication?

If it's more than 120 years old, it probably doesn't have copyright protection in the you.S. if the author is unknown; if known it should be the life of the author plus 70 years. Sixteenth Century should be safe.

As for a mere transcription, that also would probably not have copyright protection. A compilation which constitutes original creative work (original expression) might be protected, and any original work could be protected.

An original translation would, on the other hand, be subject to protection.

 

[Logan]

Now, a transcription is pretty close to translation work (what with old Scottish words, 17th century Secretary Hand, interpolating abbreviations, speculation, etc.). It also has the conventions used to denote page breaks, line breaks etc. You are telling me all of that work is public domain?

I can't speak for Edward, but that's exactly what I'm saying. Even modernizing/consistent spelling doesn't count.
I also said you had a very passionately different opinion on this

Check out the link I posted earlier, and I'd be interested to know if you've found anything legally to the contrary. I've researched a good bit on this, even tried to contact the copyright office and from the little I can get out of them other than the information on their website, they agree that it must be original, creative material, or substantially altered, not merely "a lot of work put into moving it to a different form".

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I have found the below which I have not looked around if there is other content where the author expands or contradicts it. It confirms the general idea that a copy is not copyrightable, but note my specific example, could be.
https://books.google.com/books?id=4...pt be copyrighted&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false
So the question, assuming this is not just another opinion, does transcription of secretary hand from a difficult manuscript amount to a new work?
I will assume so, someone else may not, and it may only be determined if it became a court case.

I can't speak for Edward, but that's exactly what I'm saying. Even modernizing/consistent spelling doesn't count.
I also said you had a very passionately different opinion on this

Check out the link I posted earlier, and I'd be interested to know if you've found anything legally to the contrary. I've researched a good bit on this, even tried to contact the copyright office and from the little I can get out of them other than the information on their website, they agree that it must be original, creative material, or substantially altered, not merely "a lot of work put into moving it to a different form".

 

[Logan]

The difference being that the book you reference has to do (unless I'm mistaken) with UK copyright law, which is different from US. In the US, "sweat of the brow" is treated rather differently.
https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Brow_Copyright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

The relevant case in the US being the Feist Publications one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Honestly, I don't see how either link clarifies the MS situation I'm talking about, unless you are saying even a translation is not copyrightable? I'm contending in this specific case it is more like translation work (Scottish 17th century secretary hand and other difficulties). Could anyone learn transcription of such? Surely. But anyone can learn Latin too. What is the difference?

The difference being that the book you reference has to do (unless I'm mistaken) with UK copyright law, which is different from US. In the US, "sweat of the brow" is treated rather differently.
https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Brow_Copyright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

The relevant case in the US being the Feist Publications one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.

 

[Edward]

(what with old Scottish words, 17th century Secretary Hand, interpolating abbreviations, speculation, etc.)

With the qualifications that I don't do Texas law and I don't do copyright law (I was fully up on it in the 1970s, but the internationalists and Disneyites have gotten hold of it several times since then), and that I don't fully agree with the current copyright scheme (for the reasons set out in the parentheses above):

Old Scottish words - if you put them in modern typeface, no protection. If you footnote to give a meaning understandable to a modern English reader, the footnoting may well be protected.

17th Century hand - likely not protected

Interpolating abbreviations - interpretations may be protected

Speculation - identified as such would be original work, and those portions would likely be protected.

It could well be that there is some copyright protection to the work as described, but that your original contributions could be stripped out and the work freely republished.

Additional factors to consider - to the extent that it was created in another country, the law can become more complex. (For example, the KJV can be freely copied in the US, but is subject to copyright protection in England).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Well, all I can say is, it is a good thing the profit motive has as little impetus for what I do as it does and that my audience is such that size and a biblical morality would constrain copying of the work. As far as I can see, the US law guts any incentive to uncover such things as anyone could steal it. But for the ignorant or malicious who might, I'm sure not going to make it easier by doing ebooks.

With the qualifications that I don't do Texas law and I don't do copyright law (I was fully up on it in the 1970s, but the internationalists and Disneyites have gotten hold of it several times since then), and that I don't fully agree with the current copyright scheme (for the reasons set out in the parentheses above):

Old Scottish words - if you put them in modern typeface, no protection. If you footnote to give a meaning understandable to a modern English reader, the footnoting may well be protected.

17th Century hand - likely not protected

Interpolating abbreviations - interpretations may be protected

Speculation - identified as such would be original work, and those portions would likely be protected.

It could well be that there is some copyright protection to the work as described, but that your original contributions could be stripped out and the work freely republished.

Additional factors to consider - to the extent that it was created in another country, the law can become more complex. (For example, the KJV can be freely copied in the US, but is subject to copyright protection in England).

 

[Logan]

I'm more on the opposite end: I intentionally don't copyright the things I've transcribed and published and don't do DRM for ebooks. I'm hoping someone will copy it and republish it elsewhere, the more people who read these great old works, the better.

I was recently talking to a former publisher (who shall be unnamed) about some books he had done 25 years ago. I was interested in producing some new ebooks. He "forbade" me from even doing OCR on that material (public domain material). So it's a public domain work that even your edition has been out of print for 25 years, you have no intention of ever republishing it, and you want no one else to? That kind of "morality" baffles me. I can understand if you're using it to feed yourself, but what kind of "biblical morality" insists that in order to bless the Body, you have to duplicate the exact same labor, because I won't share even though it neither helps nor hurts me in any way?

And now I'm in a moral quandary. I have what I believe is the moral right, the legal right, and yet someone has specifically (and vehemently) told me not to. Ignore them, or respect them? Don't know. But there are plenty of other things I can work on.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

But there are plenty of other things I can work on.

I think that's your answer. Or look for the text he photo reprinted and use that. I'm not sure the lesson should be that you shouldn't have asked. If you are doing missions or charity, then giving the work away is fine. But for the craft and business of bookmaking the goal is to do your best work to create a finished product that will stand for some time and trying to ensure not losing one's shirt at the same time. No one gives their product away that is actually in the book making business, whether RHB, Banner, etc.

 

[Logan]

I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking them to give away something, or to labor for free.

But if the attitude is "I'm not receiving any benefit, I haven't for 25 years, and I don't want you or anyone else to without doing the exact same work I did" then I have to question the motivation.

Note that this is with their full understanding that I could very well duplicate their work of transcription (in fact, that's what they told me to do). But again, what is the Christian motivation in asking someone to do that? What benefit does anyone receive and isn't it just wasting time that could be better spent? Just baffles me is all.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The giving away comment was not addressed to this fellow's 'I did this hard work and so should you' attitude but to your 'opposite end'. As to the person in question, I appreciate the frustration but don't see the benefit of speculating why the fellow has that attitude.

 

[bookslover]

Chris, what is "secretary hand"?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

It has odd letter forms, it was the recorder's handwriting, minute takers, etc. Here is an example of the capitals alphabet:

See here for more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_hand

 

[Edward]

in the you.S.

When I try to correct it, it properly shows the letters abbreviating the United States. Must be a software 'feature' at work.

As far as I can see, the US law guts any incentive to uncover such things as anyone could steal it.

I won't argue with that.

Well, all I can say is, it is a good thing the profit motive has as little impetus for what I do

Well, in the old days, before they became centers of leftwing indoctrination, that's what Universities were for.

 

[bookslover]

It has odd letter forms, it was the recorder's handwriting, minute takers, etc. Here is an example of the capitals alphabet:

See here for more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_hand

Almost looks like an early version of shorthand.

 

[Edward]

He "forbade" me from even doing OCR on that material (public domain material).

I'd accommodate him by not making PDFs and using them. I'd OCR, reformat, and clean up the material. Then copyleft it.

 

[Von]

And I thought this would just be a 2-post thread...

 

[Edward]

Here is an example of the capitals alphabet:

With the caveat that I haven't researched it, and don't know if there is any law on the subject, it strikes me that some of those are fairly standard script as I was taught, but some are different enough that one might be able to argue that it is closer to translation than transcription.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Add to that the fact not everyone had a nice hand (i.e. chicken scratch like me) and the problems of aged and imperfect preservation, holes, etc. It took me months to do one long sermon and more than that on what got my feet wet on this kind of thing, the Westminster larger catechism manuscripts, though there I had a cheat in that they did have a published text for clues (and they do differ, and the two MS differ from each other).

With the caveat that I haven't researched it, and don't know if there is any law on the subject, it strikes me that some of those are fairly standard script as I was taught, but some are different enough that one might be able to argue that it is closer to translation than transcription.