Scene Setter
Further to discussions elsewhere I will start a series of
I look forward to the translations.
You probably already know that these etchings are copied from photographs:
For example, this photo is thought to date from 1871:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Ffestiniog_PDold_5.jpg)
(Originating web page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festiniog_Railway_Little_Wonder )
There are also somewhat clearer versions of these etchings on line on the Graces guide website here is an example:
(https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/d/d9/Im1871ev12-p418.jpg)
(Originating web page: https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Ffestiniog_Railway)
Brian Meldon
The drawing of the rods and wheels on the third etching is a little strange! It was probably done by someone that knew little about locomotives and was just copying what they could see on the photo:
(https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/2/2c/Im1871ev12-p419.jpg)
(Originating web page: https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Ffestiniog_Railway )
Brian Meldon
Perhaps as a background to the translations the following 1871 book
I am not at all sure that anyone can claim copyright for anything which is in the Public Domain simply by stating they have copyright whatever the circumstances. My own belief is that once information has been posted publicly on the internet, any copyright which MIGHT have existed has been expunged. The moral is, if you wish to hold om to ALLEGED copyright, whether it exists or not, do not post on the internet.
Hi All,
Thanks for the comments. I suspect that Dingler got the engraved plates send over for printing, rather than having new engravings done. However, that's pure speculation, and we'd have to look at pictures side by side to determine, whether they were printed off the same plate, or an engraver in Germany copied from a magazine or book. Considering that Germany was a 3rd world country engraver's wages might well have been low enough to 'plagiarise' another picture.
Certainly the mechanics and the workings of a steam engine were not common knowledge than, i.e. an engraver was very likely to produce a 'mechanical cock-up' as he simply copied what he saw, without consideration to the workings.
I have a certain knowledge about the Ffestiniog, which suffices my needs. For example, the initial supply of wagons had single-axle bogies, which makes Eggerbahn very prototypical. ;D Somewhere I have a drawing of such a wagon, if I ever find it again (university library 40 years ago, before computer bladibla) :P
However, translations will be without comment or 2nd thoughts. I will leave that to you.
Cheers
Waldschrat
Dear Rod335,
This is certainly an erroneous view of the copyright law. No author looses the copyright by publication (be that Internet or otherwise), and by default, i.e. unless no other legal arrangements exist, the copyright expires only 70 years after the copyright owner's death.
Hence the Dingler magazine material is out of copyright, the scanned versions have copyright on them (where the copyright owner has granted permission to use with certain caveats, e.g. naming the source), and for the same reason my copyright statement applies to my translation (only), as it is my creative work and I have the right to refuse usage, even if I don't charge for granting copyright. For example, I will forbid the use on a Neo-Nazi web-page, for obvious reasons; and I insist to be asked BEFORE copying for exactly such scenarios. ;D
The fact, that there is an endemic and widespread disregard for copyright on the Internet (and elsewhere), combined with a very high tolerance and acceptance of such abuse, does neither legalise those activities, nor will it protect you from prosecution.
IMPORTANT, as most don't understand that: if I grant you permission you do NOT own the copyright, i.e. any permission is valid ONLY for the purpose stated in the permit. To OWN the copyright you have to buy it, i.e. pay for it; that is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT. You cannot obtain copyright verbally, a written contract is MANDATED by law. Therefore, any 'small print' on this web-site (or others), that implies a transfer of copyright is null and void; you cannot obtain copyright that way, not even permissions.
in a nutshell: you can use the pictures provided you abide by the copyright restrictions of the web-site I referenced. To copy my translated text and use it publicly you need my permission; to use it privately at home you can do anyway, that's not forbidden under copyright law.
And I do not look kindly on copyright abuse; just in case you're tempted. ;D
Last, not least, I (or anybody else) do not have to 'claim copyright' to own the copyright, we own the copyright by virtue of creating a piece of work ( the legal threshold for creativity is very low!). Thus my rights under copyright laws exist without express statement, and I made the statement merely to highlight that these rights exist; especially as there is an inacceptable amount of ignorance and misdemeanour around.
Cheers
Waldschrat
I take a different approach.
If I upload anything to the internet that can be viewed by others I accept that it will be copied and use by others without my consent.
If I do not want others to copy or use my material then I just do not upload it, it is as simple as that!!
My advise to anyone would be the same.
If you do not want something copied and used by others do not upload it to the internet.
Brian Meldon
I find that view very difficult, Brian. I consider the owner of, for example, the copyright in a photo to retain that copyright regardless of where or when it may be published. The fact that people copy stuff off the internet without permission doesn't change the fact, I would suggest.
I think the clue is in the word: copyRIGHT. It is the right of the owner/originator to have their work, and the copyright in it, respected.
If I'm wrong I'm happy to be corrected!
David.
What particularly worries me about copyright now is organisations like, for example, Getty Images, who collect old photographs (usually for free or very little) and immediately claim copyright. As far as the original poster is concerned, I fail to see how he can claim that since the source material is in the Public Domain, his translation can be copyright. I really have more interesting things to do than enter into what has the makings of a long and vitriolic correspondence about this but the original poster's stance seems to me to be completely untenable.
I have to say that...........I agree with Rod!
I have some knowledge of copyright from personal experience with the 20000 or so NG model photos that I own, but unlike some others I am not about to wade into a lengthy tome preaching to the already converted in most cases about copyright law - it is available to be read for all without having not always accurate opinion forced upon everyone.
As far as written work is concerned - it is not actually always 70 years after the death of the originator - in some cases ie written music scores, it is 50.
Anyway, as far as I am concerned copyright rests with the original document author/owner and if that material has been placed into the public domain eg on the internet, then there is nothing to stop anyone copying the material - for their own use. The copyright protection in this case, provided a notice has been published to that effect is to try to stop people copying it and using it elsewhere (ie re-posting it) without written permission of the copyright holder, or re-using it and trying to pass it off as their own material. This has happened to me several times over the years and I have always taken action to rectify it or report the breach if absolutely necessary.
A translation of the original document into another language is not the creation of a new original document and is therefore not the copyright of the person who translated it (who is to say that the translation has been done by the individual or through Google for example?). I could copy and paste anything into a Word document for example and by a simple click of the mouse in the tools menu I could have it translated into almost any language I want to.
If I copied an extract from the Bible into Word and then decided to translate it into German, would I have a right to claim a copyright on the translation? I don't think so! The case rests and I do not intend to get embroiled into debate about it, I've expressed my opinion and like Rod and most of the rest of us, we all have lives to lead and other things to do.
Mick
Dear Mick,
If you read the copyright law, as you infer, you will know you're cheeky with your argument, - and off topic. :laugh:
Based on your argument there would be no copyright on any photo (taken, scanned or otherwise) as you 'only' press a button and the rest is a physical process, i.e. no creative input; likewise for any recording. ;D
Clearly that is not the case, even though I would agree with you, that running a text through some translation software is not vey creative. Which, by the way, is not what I'm doing; I'm not even using a software translation as a starting point as with these old texts it takes more time to correct the gobbledegook and engineering terminology the software produces, than it takes to translate outright. ;D
You ought to know that the law applies only where a minimum of creative input is made.
A translation is a highly creative act as it requires interpretation and choice of words, and such it has its own copyright; as you can see in the copyright statement of any translated book; it is not the same as in the original. ;D
So I suggest you do as you say: read the law, it is comparatively easy to understand. ;D
Oh, and of course, I'm a foreign national, so the copyright of MY country applies, not the English. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Of course, we don't have to agree, and you can go and test the waters; - just bear in mind, you don't know what my line of work is. ;D
Last, not least, yes, you're right with the 50 years, but you're wrong too: this only applies where no transfer of copyright has occurred, e.g. the copyright on Richard Wagner's music still is extant as he made provisions in his will, even though he is dead for over 50 years! ;D Thus, when you read the copyright law don't cherry-pick what suits you, read the whole text. :laugh:
Cheers
Waldschrat
(1) It doesn't make sense that publication - i.e. making public - an original work 'expunges' the copyright in it: if it wasn't published then it wouldn't need copyright protection.
(2) Translation of an original work is presumably a special situation, for which no doubt rules have been agreed.
(3) There is no reason why this discussion need become vitriolic (and I don't think it has - yet! - Garry!) There should be no reason why we can't have an adult and potentially enlightening discussion about an interesting topic arising from the original post!
I seem to recall a discussion a couple of years ago about who owned the copyright in a photo which was actually taken by a chimpanzee...
David.
Having looked up copyright law/translations it would seem that if the original is over 70 years old (it is) then any translation of it is the copyright of the translator. So Leprachaun is right in what he says. Do a google search on copyright of translations and you will see.
Dear All,
May I close this off-topic subject with an aspect not yet mentioned?
I, and I'm not alone, do consider it basic courtesy that you ask the author or originator (which I am for the translation, not the original) before you use their work, in whole or part, for other PUBLICATIONS.
You would expect your friend to tell you, why and what for he wants your car/ wife/ model engine before he takes either, or not? ::)
Clearly, PRIVATE use is outside this discussion (as it is outside copyright law; you buy a book or CD, you can do what you like with it as long as you don't copy and sell it). Copying and posting on another web-site would be a form of such publication.
I find it not only annoying, but deeply disturbing that we have a discussion here about such fundamental ethical courtesy; as it is a very sad affair that we have to have a copyright law that needs spelling out what 'intellectual property' comprises; and we have a large section of society, who thinks in the virtual world basic rules of ethics and courtesy do not apply.
Of course, I'm not aloft of reality, that's why I started this thread with a statement about copyright; but as that was just clarifying common and basic courtesy I'm 'not amused' (to quote a very public figure) to find myself the centre of a big discussion on copyright.
If you struggle to understand the copyright law, what is your problem with using common sense (I know: biggest misnomer in English language ;D), or at least the basic rules of courtesy? ???
Can we close this discussion now, and I leave you to digest this observation? :laugh:
Just my view
Waldschrat