Jump to content

The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers


William Schryver

Recommended Posts

I've got to hand it to you. That was remarkably insightful, and nothing that I would have likely discovered otherwise. Your conclusions are reasonable. Well-presented also.

Thanks for making it available to us. You have advanced the state of understanding on the subject.

In fact, I hope that you will pursue a more expanded version in the future.

Link to comment

I've got to hand it to you. That was remarkably insightful, and nothing that I would have likely discovered otherwise. Your conclusions are reasonable. Well-presented also.

Thanks for making it available to us. You have advanced the state of understanding on the subject.

In fact, I hope that you will pursue a more expanded version in the future.

Not that it matters, but I am vaguely curious as to why this presentation (that I have sampled only, so far, btw) cannot be put to DVD for distribution? One guess might be because the copyright holder of the source materials prefers it that way?

Link to comment

So . . . anybody besides me think the "counting document" numerals were intended to be "degree" indicators?

Link to comment

Very interesting. I'm forwarding your talk to my colleague who just finished teaching a class on cryptography.

From a mathematicians perspective: We now know that straightforward character substitution ciphers are very *easy* to break. But substituting entire paragraphs would work!

Link to comment

Thanks for posting this Will.

I have a question about your third slide. I don't see how the KEP manuscripts could be copyrighted by Intellectual Reserve, Inc., since they were produced before 1923. I also don't believe that photographs of the KEP are copyrightable, because they lack "originality of expression". It appears to me that images of the KEP posted on the internet are in the public domain.

Link to comment

Thanks for posting this Will.

I have a question about your third slide. I don't see how the KEP manuscripts could be copyrighted by Intellectual Reserve, Inc., since they were produced before 1923./wiki/File:Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_I_and_XI.jpg"]public domain.

It's my understanding that it goes from first publication, not the date of creation. For example, if you discovered a never-published manuscript from Mark Twain, I believe your first publication of it would be copyrighted.

Link to comment

Thank you so much for letting me get to see this for free, Will!

I would think that it would be for free because it forwards mormonapologetics. I think that it is a big plus for apologetics and will have the critics reeling for some time. At this moment the learned critics are preparing their rebuttal. The debate has begun with Will on top of the hill.

On the other board, about a few months ago, I said that Will will be recognized as a useful apologist for the lds church and that he has become. I would now think that Will will be invited to give firesides on the Book of Abraham but from a more simplistic vocabulary.

Link to comment

It's my understanding that it goes from first publication, not the date of creation. For example, if you discovered a never-published manuscript from Mark Twain, I believe your first publication of it would be copyrighted.

You can't copyright someone else's work, even if they're dead. "Originality of expression" is fundamental to copyright law; i.e., only the author can copyright his work.

"Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work"

And even if Phelps had copyrighted his manuscripts, it would have expired by now. No pre-1923 copyright can be renewed.

Link to comment

Very interesting. I'm forwarding your talk to my colleague who just finished teaching a class on cryptography.

From a mathematicians perspective: We now know that straightforward character substitution ciphers are very *easy* to break. But substituting entire paragraphs would work!

Please keep in mind that this was a failed attempt.

HiJolly

Link to comment

Wouldn't photographs of unpublished, privately owned works be considered under copyright?

No, copyrights are for the protection of intellectual property, i.e., "creations of the mind". The KEP are not the intellectual property of anyone alive today.

"Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty and one hundred years from the author's and or creator's death, or a shorter period for anonymous or corporate authorship."

If Joseph had copyrighted the KEP (under the laws of 2010, of course), it would have expired by 1944 at the very latest. When a copyright expires, the work enters the public domain.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp established that photographs of public-domain works cannot be copyrighted.

This does not mean that you may use public domain images without attribution (otherwise you may be guilty of plagiarism). However it does mean that, with proper attribution, you can't be prevented from using them.

For copyrighted materials, fair use allows for limited reproduction without the need to obtain permission from the rights holder.

Link to comment

No, copyrights are for the protection of intellectual property, i.e., "creations of the mind". The KEP are not the intellectual property of anyone alive today.

"Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty and one hundred years from the author's and or creator's death, or a shorter period for anonymous or corporate authorship."

If Joseph had copyrighted the KEP (under the laws of 2010, of course), it would have expired by 1944 at the very latest. When a copyright expires, the work enters the public domain.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp established that photographs of public-domain works cannot be copyrighted.

This does not mean that you may use public domain images without attribution (otherwise you may be guilty of plagiarism). However it does mean that, with proper attribution, you can't be prevented from using them.

For copyrighted materials, fair use allows for limited reproduction without the need to obtain permission from the rights holder.

The law is distinct for "very old works." Smith's historical documents are protected.

Link to comment

Thanks for posting this Will.

I have a question about your third slide. I don't see how the KEP manuscripts could be copyrighted by Intellectual Reserve, Inc., since they were produced before 1923. I also don't believe that photographs of the KEP are copyrightable, because they lack "originality of expression". It appears to me that images of the KEP posted on the internet are in the public domain.

I thought for sure you would have something of substance to say regarding Will's presentation. Instead we find you haranguing over allegded copyright issues.

(I am just poking your in the ribs BTW)

Link to comment

The law is distinct for "very old works." Smith's historical documents are protected.

There are many ways documents can be "protected", but in this case, copyright is not one of them.

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created

in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship

immediately becomes the property of the author who created

the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights

through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not

the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of

the copyright law defines a

Link to comment

Nice, wm.

Drown any puppies today?

No, but a couple of kittens... :P I think that you misunderstood. Most people in the lds church will not make head or tails of Will's presentation. He will need to dumb it down a little for the fireside crowd. And bring in a different context. That is all I meant.

Link to comment

Mr. Shryver,

As one who knew very little about the KEP, I wanted to offer you my thanks for posting your presentation here. ;)

The portions of your presentation that didn't fly completely over my head (Ceeboo is clearly no pundit :P ), I found to be most interesting and very, very, very well done! (Given that it was you at the podium, that certainly did not surprise me)

Congrats Will!

BTW, I would have NEVER guessed that you sport a ponytail.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Link to comment

Will's find is not a viable stand alone fireside topic for 'dumb dumb' Mormons at this point unless you want to introduce all the BoA controversies to give it some context.

Well, I guess it could stand alone but I doubt many people would want to go to a lecture about how Joseph, Parley and Oliver attempted to create a cipher. I personally would not find it interesting and I'm more interested in LDS history than 99% of Mormons I know. The surrounding arguments are what make the find so interesting (at this point).

Link to comment

No, but a couple of kittens... :P I think that you misunderstood. Most people in the lds church will not make head or tails of Will's presentation. He will need to dumb it down a little for the fireside crowd. And bring in a different context. That is all I meant.

Gotcha.

Pax.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...