There are a lot of assumptions buried in the phrase "merely faithfully
documents the state of the manuscript you digitised." Figuring out the
text and structure of a manuscript and representing it to an audience is
often a significant scholarly act. It adds a lot of value that was not
there before, and the addition of such value seems to me prima facie
subject to laws that protect intellectual property.
It is another question altogether whether a given scholarly community
decides that it may be better off making all its added value freely
available to begin with, especially if the work is done by people in
salaried positions whose responsibilities include the production of such
Professor of English and Classics
On 12/12/12 9:45 AM, "Walter van Holst" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On 2012-12-12 16:11, Dominik Wujastyk wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>> Let's say I take an out-of-copyright printed edition of a work (P),
>> and type
>> the main text of it (say, /Hamlet/) into my computer, producing an
>> (E). I encode it using the TEI guidelines.
>> I am interested in whether or not I can claim copyright of E, my TEI
>> It is a question of whether E is a " derivative work
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work> " or contains
>> sufficient "
>> originality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality> " to qualify
>If your TEI-file merely faithfully documents the state of the
>manuscript you digitised, it is unlikely to meet originality standards
>in most jurisdictions. It may be eligible for weaker forms of copyrights
>in some jurisdictions that recognise collections of facts as
>copyrightable though. So the eternal answer remains: it depends.
>(lawyer, but only practicing in NL)