Il 17/02/14 23:57, Andrew Dunning ha scritto:
> On 6 Feb 2014, at 3:21 PM, Bruce Robertson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 2. Greg often points out that pure transcription of a public domain work is not copyrightable,
>> at least not in many jurisdictions. The sufficiently brave might want to exploit this to their advantage.
> Forget that: up here in Canada, a critically edited text isn't subject to additional copyright provisions in the first place.
> Theoretically, someone could republish a text from a scholarly edition of a just-published text in the public domain, and
> provided the apparatus were omitted, there’s nothing the publisher could do about it. Whether that would be a moral
> thing to do, even with attribution, is another question. See the following article:
> Margoni, Thomas, and Mark Perry. ‘Scientific and Critical Editions of Public Domain Works: An Example of European Copyright > Law (Dis)Harmonization’. Canadian Intellectual Property Review 27 (2011): 157–70.
> http://www.ivir.nl/publications/margoni/CIPR_2011_1.pdf
the very text (the established text) of an ancient author is intellectual property of that author. who/which entity could pretend to own exclusive rights on it?
nothing to say about any sort of apparatuses (introduction, critical apparatus, critical note, comments of any type): they are intellectual property of those who produced them and of the publisher. the author of an ancient work is clearly identified, or at least is clearly different from the author of a critical apparatus to that same work.
we must be careful not to allow anyone to claim property of orphan works, and those of classical world are an eminent case: you cannot get in touch with the authors nor with their relatives or heirs, nor with their 'publishers'.
BTW: speaking of 'moral' is here a slippery ground, as many things which publishers do are questionable from a 'moral' point of view; nevertheless them, and us, we are all bound by laws and by what laws allow. point.
maurizio
|