[sword-devel] DSS (Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls based upon DJD translations)

jhphx jhphx at cox.net
Sat Nov 10 14:55:17 MST 2012

Andrew, I don't wish to sound mean but I don't know how to soften this. 
I can only hope that some day you appreciate the guidance people here, 
are giving you.

On 11/9/2012 9:37 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> Jerry, what the Law actually says trumps what the copyright office says.

What you are implying here is that the quotes I posted from Cir 21 do 
not reflect what the actual intent of the law is.  You may be surprised 
to know that the Copyright Office is not the source of those quotes from 
Cir 21. In fact the source is the 1976 report of the House of 
Representatives Judiciary Committee on the House amendments to the bill 
that became the Copyright Act of 1976 (H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th 
Cong., 2d Sess., September 3, 1976). If those quotes don't reflect what 
the law actually is then the House report does not reflect what the 
House passed into law. There was an earlier Senate report which differs 
on some points but in the case of these quotes the House report should 
reflect changes in the proposed law after the Senate report and should 
reflect the will of not just the House but also the Senate.

> I quoted the law itself which outlines restrictions on Copyright for 
> fair use. 

And it was addressed and also your interpretation.

> I also quoted the Law which justifies 'derivative works' even where 
> Copyright applies.

Where you quote you also misinterpret.

> If copyright doesn't apply to certain types of work - you need to show 
> that the source material I've used is NOT THAT TYPE OF MATERIAL. (I'm 
> not making use of someone's novel.  I'm making use of their research.)

You contrast novel with research. That shows a fundamental flaw in your 
logic. Novels and research publications are equally entitled to 
copyright. Perhaps the bases for your misunderstanding is a common one, 
that copyright does not protect facts and research is about facts so not 
protected. The facts from research are not protected (not by copyright 
but other laws may apply) as also any fact discussed in novels are not 
protected either, but while the facts, ideas and information in works 
are not protected by copyright the ways they are expressed are, even in 
research publications as much as in novels.

17 U.S.C. § 101 - Definitions
'"Literary works" are works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in 
words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, 
regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as books, 
periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or cards, in 
which they are embodied. '

Novels and research publications are equally "literary works" under this 

> If derivative work is permitted - you need to show I've not met the 
> conditions of derivative work.

A derivative work can not be published without the permission of the 
copyright holder of the original work, because that copyright holder has 
the copyright to the original and any material  from that original in 
any derivatives of it.

17 USC § 103 - Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative 
'(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 
includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work 
employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not 
extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used 
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to 
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished 
from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply 
any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such 
work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, 
duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the 
preexisting material.'

According to (a) above your rights to produce copies of a derivative of 
your own making, do not, extend to any part of it that was used 
unlawfully (being without proper permission or exception).

17 U.S.C. § 101 - Definitions
'A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, 
such as a translation,  ...'

The DSS texts, because of age, are PD, but modern translations are 
derivatives protected by copyright being the unique expressions of the 
translators. The ideas expressed we hope are true to the original PD DSS 
texts but each translation has it own way of expressing the ideas which 
is the bases for copyright. Using these modern expressions without 
permission or license is a violation of copyright unless the the use 
falls under an exception in the law. Educational, scholarly, research, 
personal, translation or derivative use do not simply qualify as an 
exception. Fair use is an exception, but just being such things as 
educational or personal do not guarantee that a use is fair use, as I 
have already pointed out and as others have pointed out.


> The source material I've used is both exempt (according to the law) 
> and the derivative work in accordance with the law even if it weren't 
> exempt.
> ~A
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:39 PM, jhphx <jhphx at cox.net 
> <mailto:jhphx at cox.net>> wrote:
>     On 11/8/2012 9:26 AM, Andrew wrote:
>>     The US definition of 'Fair Use':
>>     http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
>>         § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
>>     Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106a, the fair
>>     use of a copyrighted work, including such use by ... is not an
>>     infringement of copyright.
>     It should be noted that the doctrine of fair use existed before
>     this section of law was coded. This section does not define the
>     doctrine but only gives guidance for applying the doctrine.
>     If there was a section of law that said something like:
>     "Notwithstanding the provisions concerning the guilt of killers, a
>     deadly act of insanity involving shooting, stabbing, poisoning, 
>     or strangling is not an act of guilt,"  it would NOT mean that any
>     act of shooting, stabbing, poisoning,  or strangling was an insane
>     act. It would not be defining insanity. Likewise, 107 is not
>     defining fair use. Thinking it does is a common mistake.
>     The fallowing quotes are from:
>     The US Copyright Office
>     Cir21
>     Reproduction of Copyrighted Works
>     by Educators and Librarians
>     http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf
>     'Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the
>     fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of
>     the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is
>     an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition
>     is possible, and each case raising the question must be
>     decided on its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have
>     evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive
>     or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing
>     the equities. These criteria have been stated in various ways,
>     but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards
>     which have been adopted in section 107:'
>     'For example,
>     the reference to fair use "by reproduction in copies or
>     phonorecords or by any other means" is mainly intended
>     to make clear that the doctrine has as much application to
>     photocopying and taping as to older forms of use; it is not
>     intended to give these kinds of reproduction any special
>     status under the fair use provision or to sanction any reproduction
>     beyond the normal and reasonable limits of fair use.
>     Similarly, the newly-added reference to "multiple copies for
>     classroom use" is a recognition that, under the proper circumstances
>     of fairness, the doctrine can be applied to reproductions
>     of multiple copies for the members of a class.
>     The Committee has amended the first of the criteria to
>     be considered---"the purpose and character of the use"---
>     to state explicitly that this factor includes a consideration
>     of "whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
>     non-profit educational purposes." This amendment is not
>     intended to be interpreted as any sort of not-for-profit
>     limitation on educational uses of copyrighted works. It is
>     an express recognition that, as under the present law, the
>     commercial or non-profit character of an activity, while
>     not conclusive with respect to fair use, can and should be
>     weighed along with other factors in fair use decisions.'
>     If one understands that last sentence then one understands that
>     non-profit and educational do not guarantee a fair use claim.
>     Jerry
>     _______________________________________________
>     sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>     <mailto:sword-devel at crosswire.org>
>     http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>     Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20121110/8e01d297/attachment.html>

More information about the sword-devel mailing list