frankenstein Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 My position is to generally attempt to keep "an open mind," and have my conclusions be evidence-formed, rather than prejudice-formed.that is what I meant good on you for being open minded Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 If you want to make the proofread text available, I can post it here:http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/utahmsc3.htmIntellectual Reserve gets antsy over reproduced copyrighted texts that are too long -- so it would be helpful to know approximately how many words were printed in the Church News section that week. If Jessee is less than 10%, I think we could get away with posting the article on the web.The Church News is not produced by Intellectual Reserve, but by the Deseret News Publishing Co. Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 The Church News is not produced by Intellectual Reserve, but by the Deseret News Publishing Co.Does that men we'd have to file an application for a legal release with Bonneville International? That might take years to process.The Church news of the 1970s was typically a 16 or 20 page insert. Dr. Jessee's 3 pages would be just barely over the "fair use" limits set by copyright convention.I'd hazard reproducing most of his text, place prominent copyright notices throughout the on-line transcript, and sit back and wait to see if the Church's lawyers protested.I tried to get web-reproduction approval for a 1949 copyrighted article from the "Church News;" but my application was returned to me without any reply or comment.I went ahead in posted that transcript, regardless:http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/utahmsc3.htm#031649UD Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Does that men we'd have to file an application for a legal release with Bonneville International? That might take years to process.No. Bonneville International, which operates the Church's commercial broadcasting entities, including, until recently, KSL Television and Radio, has no management relationship with the Deseret News. I repeat, Deseret News (and its supplement, the LDS Church News) is a product of Deseret News Publishing Co.The Church news of the 1970s was typically a 16 or 20 page insert. The Church News of the '70s was pretty much like it is today, a 16-page supplement except for general conference editions, when the page number is increased to 24.Dr. Jessee's 3 pages would be just barely over the "fair use" limits set by copyright convention.I'd hazard reproducing most of his text, place prominent copyright notices throughout the on-line transcript, and sit back and wait to see if the Church's lawyers protested.Or, you could obey the law and request permission upfront from Deseret News Publishing Co.I tried to get web-reproduction approval for a 1949 copyrighted article from the "Church News;" but my application was returned to me without any reply or comment.Maybe that's because you were following an unproductive path, trying to involve "the Church's lawyers" instead of directly contacting Deseret News Publishing Co. for permission.I went ahead in posted that transcript, regardless:http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/utahmsc3.htm#031649Thanks for the heads-up. I may or may not alert management to your possible violation of copyright. Link to comment
frankenstein Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Thanks for the heads-up. I may or may not alert management to your violation of copyright.FAIR USE Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 FAIR USEThen why did Uncle Dale apply for permission in the first place?At any rate, I'll let management make that determination.By the way, why are you screaming? (all caps) Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 ...I may or may not alert management to your possible violation of copyright.I'd be more concerned if you alerted the Google News Archive of Deseret News lawyers, since they appear to have exclusive web-rights for copyrighted DN materials dated after 1930. (It would be a pain to have to replace my typescripts with their URLs.)http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Aul-kAQHnToC&hl=enUD Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 FAIR USEAh, let Google go ahead and sue me -- it would be good publicity.By the way, Google's reproduction of the August 20, 1977 issue of the Deseret News does not include the Church News insert:http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Aul-kAQHnToC&dat=19700820&printsec=frontpageThe ocr Wiki Wonka supplied earlier in this thread duplicates Dr. Jessee's section on letter formation, beginning on page 59 of "The First Annual CES Religious Educators Symposium," where the Jessee article (pp. 57-68) is entitled "Solomon Spalding and the Book of Mormon."The DN version of Jessee's report is only a much abbreviated version of the CES Symposium Papers publication.If anybody is serious about communicating Dr. Jessee's scholarship to the world of the web, THAT would be the 1977 text they should reproduce.UD Link to comment
Wiki Wonka Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 I'd be more concerned if you alerted the Google News Archive of Deseret News lawyers, since they appear to have exclusive web-rights for copyrighted DN materials dated after 1930. (It would be a pain to have to replace my typescripts with their URLs.)http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Aul-kAQHnToC&hl=enUDNice. I had no idea that Google had this all online. They already have a scan of the entire August 20, 1977 Spalding article online here: 'Spalding theory' re-examined Its in the August 20, 1977 issue after you scroll to page 22 in the browser.WW Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Nice. I had no idea that Google had this all online. They already have a scan of the entire August 20, 1977 Spalding article online here...oops! I missed seeing that one!I wonder if Scott will turn me into the Google web-police if I post a link to that August 20, 1977 material at my site?Better not chance it -- he's got experience encountering the Tanners on such intellectual property infringement, I'd bet.UD Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 oops! I missed seeing that one!I wonder if Scott will turn me into the Google web-police if I post a link to that August 20, 1977 material at my site?Links are no problem. As I understand it, the Google archive stuff is online by arrangement with Deseret News Publishing Co.And don't worry. I don't think anybody's going to court. It just seemed a bit brazen to me to be openly admitting on a public Internet board to possible copyright infringement.Better not chance it -- he's got experience encountering the Tanners on such intellectual property infringement, I'd bet.Huh? Maybe you're confusing me with Scott Gordon. It happens occasionally, on this and other boards. Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 ...Maybe you're confusing me with Scott Gordon. It happens occasionally, on this and other boards.I'm sure you're both good men.Does he get mistaken for you?UD Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 I'm sure you're both good men.Does he get mistaken for you?UDHe'd have to answer that, but I think such a thing is less likely. I don't teach at a college or preside over an apologetics organization. Link to comment
frankenstein Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Then why did Uncle Dale apply for permission in the first place?At any rate, I'll let management make that determination.By the way, why are you screaming? (all caps)why would Dale ask permission, ask him. Why did I copy and use photos from a website that had "copyright" watermarked on all the photos...because the photos were being used in a educational setting and I know and respect FAIR USE, which means copyrights do not apply for the manner and use in which I used the photos.Copyright violation is not managements decision to make, it is for the Courts. management can whine and cry all day long about copyright.glad you pointed at the all caps as screaming....FAIR USE is definitely something to scream about, so that crybabies whining about their copyrights will get the point and start obeying the law by 1. stop filing frivolous lawsuits. 2. stop filing lawsuits filed solely simply to harass.3. stop violating others rights by use of false DCMA take down notices. and most importantly4. follow the law that allows for copyriech material to be used without permission due to . (click link to see fair use in action and to learn of the legal abuses committed by copyreich holders and before anyone complains of Goodwin Law you might want to verse yourself on Goodwin's law - it is not an absolute prohibition on using Nazis as a reference) Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 ...copyreich holders...I once produced a copyrighted periodical -- the contents of which some pirate publisher in San Francisco ripped off and reproduced for sale, without even bothering to inform me.So, I understand the potential harm involved in copyright violation.I also understand that we live in a mass-digitized information age, in which media will reproduce twenty years of sweat-soaked scholarly reporting in an instant. An age in which archive.org and google.com automatically preserve and webcast zillions of copyrighted items, continuously. The cat is out of the bag, I'm afraid. The djinn is out of the bottle.I also know that the mods here routinely close down threads at the mere mention of das Dritte Reich --- so, I'd not be surprised if suppression of your sentiments is soon forthcoming.UD. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.