4 ms·

The original texts of these books may now be in the Public Domain, but in order for the lay-person to get a copy (assuming the current publishers don't upload a

The original texts of these books may now be in the Public Domain, but in order for the lay-person to get a copy (assuming the current publishers don't upload a copyright-free version to say, Gutenberg), you have to scan/OCR an existing copy. This is where the problem begins, the text of a novel maybe in the public domain but the typesetting, binding and printing of most editions is not. As such you'll be in breach of copyright if you try to OCR a copy and distribute it. I'm sure someone will try to call me out on this, but my partner is a qualified librarian, with a specialism in copyright law.

gonzo41 9y ago
Coulnd't you just OCR >> utf-8. Problem solved.
Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
Not 100% sure on this. This is sometimes called a "thin copyright": the typesetting is in copyright, but you're free to reproduce the underlying text as long as no part of the copyright in the typesetting itself is infringed. So you could OCR or retype it, but not distribute a scanned image. (But I'm only an enthusiastic amateur so stand to be corrected.)
cpach 9y ago
I must say I doubt this. I’ve never heard before that typesetting could be copyrighted.
- Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
  Certainly can be in the UK: "Typographical arrangements - this is the layout of a page. The right protects the effort involved in, for instance, creating the combination of columns, headlines, typefaces, images and advertisements on a newspaper page." http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/copyright-related-rights.pdf http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-man...
  - Jaruzel 9y ago
    Thank you. Now can I be voted back up please? I don't make a point of posting bollocks.
    - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
      To repeat myself from above, it isn't certain that the copyright in a typographical arrangement is infringed by purely copying the textual content without reproducing the typographical arrangement, so your original assertion may not be true. (I didn't downvote you, FWIW.)
      - Jaruzel 9y ago
        Without being drawn into a long protracted argument about this (this is my last post on this topic), the simple act of scanning the formatted page pre-OCR infringes the copyright of the publisher, if the publishers rights have not yet expired. You can't OCR from nothing, at some point you need a direct copy, be it in memory or on disk, of thing being copied.
        cosarara97 9y ago
        IANAL, but I think you can't infringe copyright if you are not distributing anything. OCR is not distribution.
        zerocrates 9y ago
        You might think so, but merely copying is infringement, at least in the United States. There's even good solid precedent that copying computer software from disk to memory for the purpose of running it is a copy covered by copyright. A manufacturer sued a third-party computer maintenance company alleging copyright infringement by the technician in simply turning the machine on, and won. There's even a specific carveout for software, section 117(a)(1), but the same decision held that since that section applies only to the "owner" of a copy, it doesn't apply to licensed software. It's a pretty bonkers case. Congress explicitly overruled it by adding _another_ carveout in the same section, 117(c), which basically specifically says computer repair people don't infringe copyright in the OS by turning the computer on. Regardless, mere copying with nothing else can be infringement.
zerocrates 9y ago
Libraries and archives are sometimes copyright maximalists in some areas, particularly those that would confer rights upon them: like finding copyright in a scan of a public domain object. It's far from settled that that's the case, though. As for typesetting, I'm not sure if it's treatment in the US, but it's not out of the question that it could be protected. For works this recent though, someone finding an original edition (whose copyright would have also lapsed) would not be difficult in most cases even if necessary.

gonzo41 9y ago

Coulnd't you just OCR >> utf-8. Problem solved.

Doctor_Fegg 9y ago

Not 100% sure on this. This is sometimes called a "thin copyright": the typesetting is in copyright, but you're free to reproduce the underlying text as long as no part of the copyright in the typesetting itself is infringed. So you could OCR or retype it, but not distribute a scanned image. (But I'm only an enthusiastic amateur so stand to be corrected.)

cpach 9y ago

I must say I doubt this. I’ve never heard before that typesetting could be copyrighted.

Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
Certainly can be in the UK: "Typographical arrangements - this is the layout of a page. The right protects the effort involved in, for instance, creating the combination of columns, headlines, typefaces, images and advertisements on a newspaper page." http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/copyright-related-rights.pdf http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-man...
- Jaruzel 9y ago
  Thank you. Now can I be voted back up please? I don't make a point of posting bollocks.
  - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
    To repeat myself from above, it isn't certain that the copyright in a typographical arrangement is infringed by purely copying the textual content without reproducing the typographical arrangement, so your original assertion may not be true. (I didn't downvote you, FWIW.)
    - Jaruzel 9y ago
      Without being drawn into a long protracted argument about this (this is my last post on this topic), the simple act of scanning the formatted page pre-OCR infringes the copyright of the publisher, if the publishers rights have not yet expired. You can't OCR from nothing, at some point you need a direct copy, be it in memory or on disk, of thing being copied.
      - cosarara97 9y ago
        IANAL, but I think you can't infringe copyright if you are not distributing anything. OCR is not distribution.
        zerocrates 9y ago
        You might think so, but merely copying is infringement, at least in the United States. There's even good solid precedent that copying computer software from disk to memory for the purpose of running it is a copy covered by copyright. A manufacturer sued a third-party computer maintenance company alleging copyright infringement by the technician in simply turning the machine on, and won. There's even a specific carveout for software, section 117(a)(1), but the same decision held that since that section applies only to the "owner" of a copy, it doesn't apply to licensed software. It's a pretty bonkers case. Congress explicitly overruled it by adding _another_ carveout in the same section, 117(c), which basically specifically says computer repair people don't infringe copyright in the OS by turning the computer on. Regardless, mere copying with nothing else can be infringement.

zerocrates 9y ago

Libraries and archives are sometimes copyright maximalists in some areas, particularly those that would confer rights upon them: like finding copyright in a scan of a public domain object. It's far from settled that that's the case, though. As for typesetting, I'm not sure if it's treatment in the US, but it's not out of the question that it could be protected. For works this recent though, someone finding an original edition (whose copyright would have also lapsed) would not be difficult in most cases even if necessary.