by actage 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
Isn’t it sad that creativity is frowned on by many Watchtowerites? When my first book was published my daughters wanted to tell everyone. No. Just no. I know “the brothers” well enough to know that someone would make it an issue
Old Goat, I understand exactly what you mean. At times, I have held back from expressing myself because I was too worried about breaking a rule or "stumbling" someone.
I think it would be useful to start a new threat on the effect of the Witness culture on creativity.
most works published before 1964 are in public domain, that is anyone can reprint them or otherwise publish them.
False. Only those where the copyright was not renewed.
From Wikipedia:
"Works published or registered before 1978 currently have a maximum copyright duration of 95 years from the date of publication, if copyright was renewed during the 28th year following publication [ 18 ] (such renewal was made automatic by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992; prior to this the copyright would expire after 28 years if not renewed). The date of death of the author is not a factor in the copyright term of such works.
All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain; [ 19 ] works created before 1978 but not published until recently may be protected until 2047. [ 20 ] For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. With rare exception (such as very old works first published after 2002), no additional copyrights will expire (thus entering the public domain) until at least 2019 due to changes in the applicable laws."
Johnathan,
Apparently you can't distinguish between "most" and "all." What I wrote is not false. Most books published before 1964 are in the public domain because their copyright was not renewed. As I said, there is a web site that tells one the copyright status of older books.
At least you know how to find wikipedia. That's a plus. Now if you learn how to distinguish between "most" and "all" you'll be making real progress.
Re-read this: Without discussing all the various details of American copyright law, most works published before 1964 are in public domain, that is anyone can reprint them or otherwise publish them. This is not always so, and there is a web site that will tell you if a book or other matter is still under copyright.
How about the fairly common practice I've seen on this site of posting entire articles from a WT, Awake! or KM?
Does this constitute "fair use"?
Opinions?
om
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/182812/1/Dictionary-Of-Biblical-Imagery-PDF
the entire book is available on a link with that post and the book is copyright 1998 from Intervarsity Press
At least you know how to find wikipedia. That's a plus.
Well, I suppose if you go back far enough in time you would be correct if you look at all books published but your statement seemed a bit vague and misleading; a bit sweeping. Identifying the window would have clarified things. Someone could unwittingly think that, say, most books published during the 20 years prior to 1964 are in the public domain which probably is not correct. And with respect to what "most" means, are we dealing with sheer numbers? Does anyone know how many books were published before 1964? That fall within the applicable copyright laws?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/182812/1/Dictionary-Of-Biblical-Imagery-PDF
the entire book is available on a link with that post and the book is copyright 1998 from Intervarsity Press
Hmmm ... well, at first glance it seems doubtful that the poster of this link violated anyone's copyright. But it is an area of law that is still a bit vague. I read recently that Murdoch is threatening to sue Google to try and remove links to Murdoch's site, or something to that effect. But for the most part it is nonactionable that I can tell .....
On the other hand I just don't know because the site that hosts the files seems to be impinging on those rights. After all, why would the authors offer it as a free download there if they are selling it on Amazon.com? So it would be analogous to illegal file sharing of music. Maybe it is illegal if those files shouldn't be up there in the first place. How is that for a non-answer?
How about the fairly common practice I've seen on this site of posting entire articles from a WT, Awake! or KM?
Does this constitute "fair use"?
Not without some kind of comment or analysis or discussion. Just posting would be a violation. One of the "fair-use" factors the courts take under consideration is "purpose." And favored purposes are comment and criticism. Other factors are balanced. Of course if the WTS knows about it and allows it to continue they might at some point waive their right to complain, a type of implied consent, MAYBE.
JeffT: Any direct quote must be cited, even if only one word.
Doh! (Matt Groening, "The Simpsons")
Only one word? Really? Are you positive?
