-
Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
It is always nice when someone decides to share. And when the thing shared is pen information, it is beyond nice: it’s a public service.
We were browsing through our favourite host of online information, the Internet Archive and came across the fruits of some generous soul’s labour: high quality scans of vintage fountain pen & pencil documents. Catalogues and service manuals for some of the biggest names in the pen business. These are all public domain items, some in full colour, and represent a very valuable collection.
The importance of this information cannot be understated. We can often pinpoint the age of a pen by it’s appearance in a catalogue. Or, we may be able to determine exactly which pen would have gone with which desk base. We have discovered the exact length of the neck ribbons originally supplied by Waterman. The list goes on, and that’s just the catalogues!
The real treasure is in the service manuals. Detailed breakdowns of pens. Step-by-step instructions as to repair methods. Illustrations of tools designed & provided by the manufacturers. This information is a lifeline for old pens.
So our thanks goes out to the kind soul who, rather than hoarding this information—or choosing to profit by selling it—chose to enrich us all.
The documents are posted to archive.org in groupings, which are not chronological and are named a bit oddly. We have decided to list them a little more intuitively on our website, making it much easier to locate what you are specifically looking for: http://www.restorersart.com/?p=1245
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
It has come to our attention that some of the documents listed above may have come from the online library of the Pen Collectors of America, and that their free availability may be damaging to that organization. I have included an end-note addressing this on our site.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Very nice post that I'm sure will help many people.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
D Armstrong
It has come to our attention that some of the documents listed above may have come from the online library of the
Pen Collectors of America, and that their free availability may be damaging to that organization. I have included an end-note addressing this on our site.
I think that depends on whether or not the scans actually came from their site, or if someone else made scans themselves. If it's merely that it's the same content, personally I wouldn't worry as much about it (because documents and artwork and such as old as they are, are legally public domain, well tricky anyways).
Is the scans the only thing PCA is good for?
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
As far as I can tell, every single one of the scans was taken without permission from the PCA's Reference Library.
To clarify, while a given book or document may be in the public domain (which is to say, it either was not copyrighted, or its copyright has expired), when someone digitizes that book or document, the resulting files are NOT automatically in the public domain. Companies such as Ancestry.com, for example, digitize huge quantities of public records. Access to the original records themselves is free, but the digital versions are another matter. One pays for the convenience, and for all the work involved. If Ancestry.com couldn't charge, they couldn't provide the service. It's that simple.
Compared to services such as Ancestry.com, access to the PCA Reference Library is dirt cheap. The PCA is nonprofit, and anyone can join. And joining helps ensure that there is a central repository preserving pen reference material. The work of scanning new material and upgrading the old is ongoing, with a staggering amount of work still to be done. Yes, many institutions have put scanned material up on Google Books or the Internet Archive. In many of those cases, however, the expense of digitization was covered by outside grants. The PCA has not been so lucky, and so has had to rely upon its own resources, including a host of member volunteers. So please, if you think digitization of rare pen reference material is a good thing, support the organization that is putting the effort into actually doing it.
David
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KBeezie
Is the scans the only thing PCA is good for?
Not at all. Here's a link to PCA's site: https://www.pencollectorsofamerica.com
Their magazine is really nicely done - - very attractive and informative.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vintagepens
As far as I can tell, every single one of the scans was taken without permission from the PCA's Reference Library.
To clarify, while a given book or document may be in the public domain (which is to say, it either was not copyrighted, or its copyright has expired), when someone digitizes that book or document, the resulting files are NOT automatically in the public domain. Companies such as Ancestry.com, for example, digitize huge quantities of public records. Access to the original records themselves is free, but the digital versions are another matter. One pays for the convenience, and for all the work involved. If Ancestry.com couldn't charge, they couldn't provide the service. It's that simple.
Compared to services such as Ancestry.com, access to the PCA Reference Library is dirt cheap. The PCA is nonprofit, and anyone can join. And joining helps ensure that there is a central repository preserving pen reference material. The work of scanning new material and upgrading the old is ongoing, with a staggering amount of work still to be done. Yes, many institutions have put scanned material up on Google Books or the Internet Archive. In many of those cases, however, the expense of digitization was covered by outside grants. The PCA has not been so lucky, and so has had to rely upon its own resources, including a host of member volunteers. So please, if you think digitization of rare pen reference material is a good thing, support the organization that is putting the effort into actually doing it.
David
If they obtained the scans from PCA, then that indeed changes things (ie: not in favor of Archive). If they instead scanned it themselves (or was provided the scans with permission), then there's nothing really to debate.
I'm all for the share of various mediums, especially historical documents, provided they're not obtained by illicit means (I'm not a member of PCA, but I imagine that part of the agreement when you become a member is that you will not share the resources and digital mediums to non-members). For my own purposes if I want to show off something, or use something for informational purposes, I will try to get a physical copy of it myself and scan it myself, or obtain permission from someone who has it. (As a photographer I feel the same way when it comes to photographs of pens etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Robert
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KBeezie
Is the scans the only thing PCA is good for?
Not at all. Here's a link to PCA's site:
https://www.pencollectorsofamerica.com
Their magazine is really nicely done - - very attractive and informative.
My question was mainly to bring scrutiny to the claim that such availability of the scans would be "damaging" to the association. Which I wouldn't feel too bad about, however if the images were obtained *from* PCA without permission, then my stance would change.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
I don't see it so much in terms of "damaging", either.
If the scans just happened to cover the same material as the scans in the PCA library, no big deal.
But this appears to be all about the PCA's scans being publicly posted for distribution without permission or even credit -- definitely not cool.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
I think it's worth underlining the key points that David Armstrong made in his first post (even though, initially, he was unaware of the deserving recipient of his praises) -- that these PCA Library materials were contributed, scanned, and organized by kind and generous souls who did not make a profit on their materials or their labors. Furthermore, they represent a very valuable collection, and the importance of the information cannot be overstated. In addition to the catalogs, which contain such nuggets as the original length of the Waterman ribbons, there is the trove of repair manuals, which represent a lifeline for old pens. Clearly, they represent far more than merely being "a few files," as Mr. Armstrong demonstrates when he explains his delight in discovering an obscure fact in one of the Waterman catalogs -- he just hadn't realized that all this information was already available to any PCA member.
And David bestowed this lavish -- and deserved -- praise on only a fraction of the materials that the PCA Library contains, which is high praise indeed for the value of the totality of the PCA Library's holdings. As someone recently observed, the library has hundreds of pen catalogs, pamphlets, brochures and other materials available online, and "if someone wonders what model is his 1920's black Parker pen, besides asking online at boards, he can search original company catalogues via the PCA. Access to the Library is gold. . . . If one wishes to learn a ton and to support the hobby, [joining the PCA] is a good way to do it."
Other issues aside, PCA members should be grateful for Mr. Armstrong's compliments to the PCA's contributors, volunteers, and important holdings, and for drawing attention to the value of a PCA membership.
--Daniel
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
This has had a fairly decent "working over" on the FPB with some strong emotions shown and a bit feisty at times.
There are two issues, on legal and the other ethical. Firstly the documents are in the public domain and digitizing them doesn't alter that fact which means the PCA has no rights to them as such nor any control over there use. They have a right to sell copies, a right to have them in a members only area and I think a right to mark the digital copies as from the PCA. If a copyright did exist it would most likely be owned by the pen companies. Given these are mostly advertising material then the pen companies (if still going) would probably view any material that raised brand awareness as good. The ethics is a different matter, reasons include the collecting of the material, the scanning, the source (ie provided to the PCA by the owner of the original etc), the pride of having a collection like that in one place and the feeling of being betrayed by those that put the "hard yards in". People can make up their own mind (legal v ethical) but the reality of the digital era makes any form of control difficult even when it occurs illegally ( look at music and torrents ). BTW I prefer the ethical viewpoint, so much that I joined the PCA.
Modern catalogs would most likely be subject to copyright, it could be the company if "in house" or possibly the photographer if done out of house. Considering the purpose of the material was to advertise and provided free there is little reason for anyone/business/company to exercise it's copyright as it could be seen as beneficial in raising brand awareness, so for all practical purposes they can be copied and distributed ( it's hard to argue a financial reason when the product was free and copyright is about money in the wash up).
Regards
Hugh
Disclaimer: This is a personal opinion.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HughC
Modern catalogs would most likely be subject to copyright, it could be the company if "in house" or possibly the photographer if done out of house.
Modern catalogs are definitely under copyright. In fact, since March 1, 1989, in the US, all printed documents are copyrighted, whether there is a notice or not. The instant an expression is put into "fixed" form, it is covered by copyright. (cf Hirtle: Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, https://copyright.cornell.edu/resour...blicdomain.cfm.)
In the case of someone hired to provide content (such as a photographer or copywriter), they are considered to have transferred their copyrights to the hiring party (unless there is specific provision in their contract otherwise, which there usually isn't.)
It's interesting to see someone recognize the difference in thinking between advertisers today, and those of a hundred years ago. Today, no one would dream of "giving away" any sort of rights to anything. But back then, copyright notice was rarely, if ever, put on advertising copy. It's not that they were unaware of the issue, or the requirements (after all, lawyers transcend time.) But, as High pointed out, I suspect they would have thought it insane to limit the use or distribution of their advertising. I can just imagine it: "They want to make extra copies and give them away? By all means! In fact, we'd have paid them to do it, the rubes..."
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vintagepens
As far as I can tell, every single one of the scans was taken without permission from the PCA's Reference Library.
To clarify, while a given book or document may be in the public domain (which is to say, it either was not copyrighted, or its copyright has expired), when someone digitizes that book or document, the resulting files are NOT automatically in the public domain. Companies such as Ancestry.com, for example, digitize huge quantities of public records. Access to the original records themselves is free, but the digital versions are another matter. One pays for the convenience, and for all the work involved. If Ancestry.com couldn't charge, they couldn't provide the service. It's that simple.
Compared to services such as Ancestry.com, access to the PCA Reference Library is dirt cheap. The PCA is nonprofit, and anyone can join. And joining helps ensure that there is a central repository preserving pen reference material. The work of scanning new material and upgrading the old is ongoing, with a staggering amount of work still to be done. Yes, many institutions have put scanned material up on Google Books or the Internet Archive. In many of those cases, however, the expense of digitization was covered by outside grants. The PCA has not been so lucky, and so has had to rely upon its own resources, including a host of member volunteers. So please, if you think digitization of rare pen reference material is a good thing, support the organization that is putting the effort into actually doing it.
David
One of the interesting notions illuminated by this discussion over at Fountain Pen Board (link to follow), is that no one has right to assert copyright over public domain documents. I do apologize on behalf of the PCA for some of the paranoid-ish rants offered by a PCA person aimed against beloved hobby author Paul Erano in the five page thread to follow, but the discussion of copyrights on old pen catalogues really is fascinating.
http://fountainpenboard.com/forum/in...ts-now-online/
regards
david
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
D. Armstrong - Thanks for sharing the link.
As for the rest of the drama... I can only shake my head. 6 pages and I think I finally got the gist of it:
Altruism is good when you're the recipient, but altruism is bad when it has the potential to impact profit for selling things received from altruism.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
D. Armstrong - Thanks for sharing the link.
As for the rest of the drama... I can only shake my head. 6 pages and I think I finally got the gist of it:
Altruism is good when you're the recipient, but altruism is bad when it has the potential to impact profit for selling things received from altruism.
Philosophers can go at it for centuries, with textbooks filtering "it" down to a sentence centuries later. Six pages not so bad ;)
-d
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
D. Armstrong - Thanks for sharing the link.
As for the rest of the drama... I can only shake my head. 6 pages and I think I finally got the gist of it:
Altruism is good when you're the recipient, but altruism is bad when it has the potential to impact profit for selling things received from altruism.
No, that's not the gist of it. You've missed the central point, actually.
Altruism can be good when you decide to give away something you put time, money, and effort into creating. But purported altruism can be bad when you decide to give away -- without permission, or even acknowledgement -- something someone else put time, money, and effort into creating.
--Daniel
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Note that while there is room always to discuss nuances regarding various courtesies, readers should not be misled to believe that "time, money, effort" convey any actual legal right to public domain material. Indeed, some of those who have tried to legally assert such rights have been found guilty of copyfraud. There is of course nothing wrong with offering easy access to public domain material while charging a fee for that easy access. But, some land on quicksand by embracing the belief that they have the right to exclude others from offering similar. The copying of public domain material does not offer one exclusive rights to offer said copies, even if one made the copies.
I invite exploration of the subject at a healthy 6 page thread on the subject at Fountain Pen Board http://www.fountainpenboard.com/foru...ts-now-online/
As an aside, if rumor is correct, the Fountain Pen Journal can welcome a Canadian pen collector to the ranks of pending contributors of articles. No doubt a good thing.
regards
David
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kirchh
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
D. Armstrong - Thanks for sharing the link.
As for the rest of the drama... I can only shake my head. 6 pages and I think I finally got the gist of it:
Altruism is good when you're the recipient, but altruism is bad when it has the potential to impact profit for selling things received from altruism.
No, that's not the gist of it. You've missed the central point, actually.
Altruism can be good when you decide to give away something you put time, money, and effort into creating. But purported altruism can be bad when you decide to give away -- without permission, or even acknowledgement -- something someone
else put time, money, and effort into creating.
--Daniel
Wouldn't it be worse to profit off of something that someone else (i.e.: the manufacturer) truly put time, money and effort in creating? Oh, that's when "public domain" is the key point and perfectly acceptable justification.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kirchh
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
D. Armstrong - Thanks for sharing the link.
As for the rest of the drama... I can only shake my head. 6 pages and I think I finally got the gist of it:
Altruism is good when you're the recipient, but altruism is bad when it has the potential to impact profit for selling things received from altruism.
No, that's not the gist of it. You've missed the central point, actually.
Altruism can be good when you decide to give away something you put time, money, and effort into creating. But purported altruism can be bad when you decide to give away -- without permission, or even acknowledgement -- something someone
else put time, money, and effort into creating.
--Daniel
Wouldn't it be worse to profit off of something that someone else (i.e.: the manufacturer) truly put time, money and effort in creating? Oh, that's when "public domain" is the key point and perfectly acceptable justification.
Excellent question. The answer is no. The reason is very simple. The manufacturer received exactly the benefit they anticipated when they created the material (assuming arguendo it was copyrighted).
--Daniel
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
I'd be interested to see the ethical theory that justifies those two disparate viewpoints.
Nobody (except the public) owned the documents. The outrage is ridiculous, and sounds like sour grapes because it is more difficult to profit from something that didn't belong to anyone in the first place.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
I think a clarification will be useful here. There has been a conflation or blurring between rights conferred to the creator or owner of a work under copyright law, and rights that exist with regard to ownership (as in legal possession). These are distinct. A person or entity may lack protection under copyright law (by not owning the copyright to a work), but they may have rights due to the fact that they possess the work, or a copy thereof.
If I purchase an old, out of copyright catalog, I don't acquire a copyright on the contents of the catalog. If I make a photocopy of the catalog, I don't acquire the copyright on the photocopy. However, no one has the right to reproduce my photocopy without my permission, because they would need my permission to possess the photocopy in order to reproduce it. This is not due to any copyright ownership. No one can assert that because the photocopy is not protected by copyright, I must permit anyone who requests it to borrow it so that they can copy it, and certainly no one can assert that I must distribute or otherwise make available my photocopy to the public because it's not copyrightable. Therefore, I control my reproduction through possession, not via copyright. I can grant someone permission to make a copy under a set of terms that I craft, which may include restrictions on any further dissemination; a potential acquirer of such a copy is free to accept or to reject these conditions for receiving access to the copy. All of the preceding applies to a digital copy as well as to a paper photocopy.
So, the copying of public domain material does confer exclusive rights to offer those copies (though not because of the acquisition of a copyright on the copies), until that right is surrendered explicitly or implicitly (by failing to attach terms when distributing copies of the material).
There may be a misapprehension that it is legally impermissible to make copies of public-domain materials and then not to make those copies freely available to any member of the public, because the copier does not acquire a copyright on the copies. That's simply incorrect. There may also be an opinion among some that it is unethical to make copies of public-domain materials and then not to make those copies freely available to any member of the public, because the copier does not acquire a copyright on the copies. I don't hold that opinion.
--Daniel
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
I'd be interested to see the ethical theory that justifies those two disparate viewpoints.
Nobody (except the public) owned the documents. The outrage is ridiculous, and sounds like sour grapes because it is more difficult to profit from something that didn't belong to anyone in the first place.
I disagree with the embedded premise. They are one viewpoint, not two disparate viewpoints.
See my post that explains the difference between ownership of copyright on a work and the creation and ownership of an instance of a copy of a public-domain work.
Under copyright law, the contents and appearance of a public-domain work do not belong to anyone, by definition, but a particular copy of such a work belongs initially to the creator of the copy. Reward for acquiring materials and reproducing them can be obtained through the existence of an incentive -- financial or otherwise -- that can be constructed using contracts, though not via the assertion of copyright. The establishment of such an agreement-based reward mechanism which produces an incentive can thus result in the availability of otherwise difficult-to-obtain materials.
--Daniel
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Thanks for all that. To continue the analogy: It looks like you lost possession of your photocopy, saw a copy that just looks like it and are claiming it's yours. Maybe you should have marked it in a way that you could prove ownership.
Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Thanks for all that. To continue the analogy: It looks like you lost possession of your photocopy, saw a copy that just looks like it and are claiming it's yours. Maybe you should have marked it in a way that you could prove ownership.
First, let's correct a stark error in your recitation of the events: the documents posted to archive.org are the ones in the PCA library. I don't want there to be any further confusion on this point that could provide an opportunity for some specious claim that the archive.org documents are different scans of the source documents. It is trivial to determine that the documents are the same.
I agree that the PCA should have marked the documents to make this determination easier, but the fact stands that they are the same documents.
The PCA should also have anticipated that their incentive/reward mechanism was incomplete without an attached set of terms on the distribution of their copies; they have now rectified that.
Quote:
Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.
You continue to be confused about the distinction between the ownership of the copyright on a work and the ownership of a particular reproduction of a public-domain work. There is no ethical issue with freely deciding to undertake the reproduction, classification, storage and distribution of a public-domain work because of a particular reward that would ensue (notwithstanding that the PCA had a flaw in their implementation of this process). You haven't pointed out anything that the PCA did, or tried to do, that was unethical. Do you believe that any person or organization that possesses a public-domain work is under an ethical obligation to distribute copies of that work for free to the public?
--Daniel
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
I note that no evidence has been offered that a legal right of any sort exists to limit distribution of digital copies of public domain works, no matter who made said digital copy. I note that evidence has been presented at Fountain Pen Board that those who make digital copies of public domain works in fact have no legal right to limit distribution of said copies by... anyone. I note that those who engage in legal maneuvers to prevent dissemination of digital copies of public domain material put themselves at risk of committing copyfraud, a potentially actionable offense.
Attempts legally to control one's digital reproduction of public domain works appear to be nonsense.
I am inclined to test the theory on a large scale.
regards
david
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Thanks for all that. To continue the analogy: It looks like you lost possession of your photocopy, saw a copy that just looks like it and are claiming it's yours. Maybe you should have marked it in a way that you could prove ownership.
Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.
Hi Dneal,
I don't see any ethical problem with PCA offering an easy-access portal to public domain works and charging a fee for the ease of access. I note merely that this appears to be a somewhat tenuous business model, given that we have learned-- thanks to the issues raised by Jon Veley at Fountain Pen Board-- that said material is free for anyone to use and given that offering such material at different websites or via other media is easy to do. Something about closing Pandora's box, putting the Djinn back in the bottle. Entropy can be a bitch.
regards
David
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kirchh
First, let's correct a stark error in your recitation of the events: the documents posted to archive.org are the ones in the PCA library. I don't want there to be any further confusion on this point that could provide an opportunity for some specious claim that the archive.org documents are different scans of the source documents. It is trivial to determine that the documents are the same.
I agree that the PCA should have marked the documents to make this determination easier, but the fact stands that they are the same documents.
The PCA should also have anticipated that their incentive/reward mechanism was incomplete without an attached set of terms on the distribution of their copies; they have now rectified that.
Quote:
Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.
You continue to be confused about the distinction between the ownership of the copyright on a work and the ownership of a particular reproduction of a public-domain work. There is no ethical issue with freely deciding to undertake the reproduction, classification, storage and distribution of a public-domain work because of a particular reward that would ensue (notwithstanding that the PCA had a flaw in their implementation of this process). You haven't pointed out anything that the PCA did, or tried to do, that was unethical. Do you believe that any person or organization that possesses a public-domain work is under an ethical obligation to distribute copies of that work for free to the public?
--Daniel
Oh, I'm not confused at all about the issue. Your presentation of it is quite confusing. You also seem to be unable to separate the notions of legal and ethical. I'm addressing the latter. We can talk ethics, and feel free to pick your philosophy/philosopher/school of thought. Bentham and utilitarianism? James and Pragmatism? Kant and the categorical imperative?
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
david i
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Thanks for all that. To continue the analogy: It looks like you lost possession of your photocopy, saw a copy that just looks like it and are claiming it's yours. Maybe you should have marked it in a way that you could prove ownership.
Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.
Hi Dneal,
I don't see any ethical problem with PCA offering an easy-access portal to public domain works and charging a fee for the ease of access. I note merely that this appears to be a somewhat tenuous business model, given that we have learned-- thanks to the issues raised by Jon Veley at Fountain Pen Board-- that said material is free for anyone to use and given that offering such material at different websites or via other media is easy to do. Something about closing Pandora's box, putting the Djinn back in the bottle. Entropy can be a bitch.
regards
David
Honestly, I don't have a problem with PCA offering the documents either. I do recognize that once they attempt to assume the high moral ground, that their position (strictly speaking) is shaky.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kirchh
First, let's correct a stark error in your recitation of the events: the documents posted to archive.org are the ones in the PCA library. I don't want there to be any further confusion on this point that could provide an opportunity for some specious claim that the archive.org documents are different scans of the source documents. It is trivial to determine that the documents are the same.
I agree that the PCA should have marked the documents to make this determination easier, but the fact stands that they are the same documents.
The PCA should also have anticipated that their incentive/reward mechanism was incomplete without an attached set of terms on the distribution of their copies; they have now rectified that.
Quote:
Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.
You continue to be confused about the distinction between the ownership of the copyright on a work and the ownership of a particular reproduction of a public-domain work. There is no ethical issue with freely deciding to undertake the reproduction, classification, storage and distribution of a public-domain work because of a particular reward that would ensue (notwithstanding that the PCA had a flaw in their implementation of this process). You haven't pointed out anything that the PCA did, or tried to do, that was unethical. Do you believe that any person or organization that possesses a public-domain work is under an ethical obligation to distribute copies of that work for free to the public?
--Daniel
Oh, I'm not confused at all about the issue. Your presentation of it is quite confusing. You also seem to be unable to separate the notions of legal and ethical. I'm addressing the latter. We can talk ethics, and feel free to pick your philosophy/philosopher/school of thought. Bentham and utilitarianism? James and Pragmatism? Kant and the categorical imperative?
Your confusion is evident in your statement, "PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing." The PCA did not create the original works, nor did they own the copyright to those works or to any copies of those works, but they did own the instances of the reproductions they acquired or created, and the PCA had discretion as to the terms under which they made those reproductions available. I hope that clears up the confusion.
You've made no specific ethical objection; merely asserting, "it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place" is not a line of ethical reasoning. I posed a specific ethical question, which you failed to answer: Do you believe that any person or organization that possesses a public-domain work is under an ethical obligation to distribute copies of that work for free to the public? That's talking ethics, and the "school of thought" should be yours.
--Daniel
P.S. To clear up another error, there is no issue of "copyfraud" here, as the question under discussion does not revolve around a claim that the PCA holds the copyright to the materials in question, per the definition of that term provided by Wikipedia.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
To emphasize:
I note that no evidence has been offered that a legal right of any sort exists to limit distribution of digital copies of public domain works, no matter who made said digital copy. I note that evidence has been presented at Fountain Pen Board that those who make digital copies of public domain works in fact have no legal right to limit distribution of said copies by... anyone. I note that those who engage in legal maneuvers to prevent dissemination of digital copies of public domain material put themselves at risk of committing copyfraud, a potentially actionable offense.
Attempts legally to control one's digital reproduction of public domain works appear to be nonsense.
I am inclined to test the theory on a large scale.
regards
david
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Nobody (except the public) owned the documents. The outrage is ridiculous, and sounds like sour grapes because it is more difficult to profit from something that didn't belong to anyone in the first place.
I want to emphasize the error here. Nobody -- including the public -- owned the copyright to the works. The reproductions were owned by the creator (or party who arranged for their creation, etc.).
If you photocopy a copy of a public-domain Parker catalog, do you believe that you do not own that photocopy (not the copyright, just the actual photocopy), and that furthermore you must provide any member of the public access to it for free?
--Daniel
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
I cheerfully note that there are no digital rights owned by any creator of a digital copy of a public domain works. "Reproductions" in this context is an unfortunately ambiguous term. The creator of a photocopy of a public domain work has the right to the few pieces of paper in his hand, not because he has any rights to the image, but because he owns... the physical paper. One may not take another person's 8 sheets of paper without his permission. To do so would be to steal. However, no one owns a digital copy of a public domain work. Once it is accessed it may be legally distributed at will. Nothing has been stolen, as any current possessor of the digital information has no claim to it.
I note that while no one has an obligation to distribute a digital copy in his possession of a public domain work free or otherwise (what does "for free" mean?), no one-- including he who copied first the public domain work-- can prevent others from disseminating further copies.
fun stuff.
-d
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
I was sent this by a fellow collector as an example of digital material in the public domain, free for distribution at will.
regards
david
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kirchh
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Nobody (except the public) owned the documents. The outrage is ridiculous, and sounds like sour grapes because it is more difficult to profit from something that didn't belong to anyone in the first place.
I want to emphasize the error here. Nobody -- including the public -- owned the
copyright to the works. The reproductions were owned by the creator (or party who arranged for their creation, etc.).
If you photocopy a copy of a public-domain Parker catalog, do you believe that you do not own that photocopy (not the copyright, just the actual photocopy), and that furthermore you must provide any member of the public access to it for free?
--Daniel
David answered your question, but I'll make the issue simple:
PCA has a library of scanned catalogs that were printed by others.
PCA thinks they have control or ownership of these scans (this is the first debatable point).
Similar scans of these catalogs are also available at archive.org.
PCA thinks these documents are copies of their documents (debatable, but probable and I'll even concede that they did come from PCA for the sake of the argument).
PCA thinks it is illegal for these documents to have been uploaded to archive.org (I think this is a point you are making, but we can toss it out if you're not).
PCA thinks it is unethical for someone else to upload their documents for free distribution to archive.org (the second debatable point).
PCA thinks it will lose revenue because of these documents being on archive.org (debatable, but I'll concede this point as well).
For the first point, I do not agree. I sympathize. It runs down many avenues on where the "originals" that were scanned came from, but the bottom line is that the information is owned by the public and not PCA.
For the second debatable point, I again sympathize. I do not agree. Public information is made available to the public. There is nothing unethical about that. It can't have been stolen, because that implies that PCA had ownership. They didn't. PCA was selling convenience, not the information itself.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Well, this thread has been extremely useful. It reminded me just what a worthy organization the PCA is. What a shame more people don't support it.
Unfortunately, I was very busy and let my PCA membership slide this spring. Thanks to this thread, I've now renewed.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Let's go over it once more!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kirchh
If I purchase an old, out of copyright catalog, I don't acquire a copyright on the contents of the catalog. If I make a photocopy of the catalog, I don't acquire the copyright on the photocopy. However, no one has the right to reproduce my photocopy without my permission, because they would need my permission to possess the photocopy in order to reproduce it. This is not due to any copyright ownership. No one can assert that because the photocopy is not protected by copyright, I must permit anyone who requests it to borrow it so that they can copy it, and certainly no one can assert that I must distribute or otherwise make available my photocopy to the public because it's not copyrightable. Therefore, I control my reproduction through possession, not via copyright. I can grant someone permission to make a copy under a set of terms that I craft, which may include restrictions on any further dissemination; a potential acquirer of such a copy is free to accept or to reject these conditions for receiving access to the copy. All of the preceding applies to a digital copy as well as to a paper photocopy.
--Daniel
Nice argument Daniel but wrong. While physical ownership confers rights to the actual item it doesn't extend to the content of public domain documents so coping content that you have no rights to is not an issue, again in monetary terms you have not been affected unless the original sustains damage in the process. True you can try to control via ownership of original but you have no control over any copy that's made, again because you don't own the content. What you suggest amounts to trying to control public domain documents by asserting ownership of a document confers this right, which it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kirchh
The PCA should also have anticipated that their incentive/reward mechanism was incomplete without an attached set of terms on the distribution of their copies; they have now rectified that.
--Daniel
I just read all that on the PCA site, unfortunately means nothing except reinforcing the ethical issues. It is a good idea to mark where they came from but noting in the digital era this is easily removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
PCA has a library of scanned catalogs that were printed by others.
PCA thinks they have control or ownership of these scans (this is the first debatable point).
Similar scans of these catalogs are also available at archive.org.
PCA thinks these documents are copies of their documents (debatable, but probable and I'll even concede that they did come from PCA for the sake of the argument).
PCA thinks it is illegal for these documents to have been uploaded to archive.org (I think this is a point you are making, but we can toss it out if you're not).
PCA thinks it is unethical for someone else to upload their documents for free distribution to archive.org (the second debatable point).
PCA thinks it will lose revenue because of these documents being on archive.org (debatable, but I'll concede this point as well).
Assembling a collection such as PCA has is a commendable and very worthwhile effort and does deserve due respect ( a key point). That PCA would like to exercise some control is certainly understandable due to the time and effort put in. Unfortunately not owning the content means they have no right to control it, they have the same right to copy it as everyone else has (key point) which is a point overlooked regardless of whether they had to pay for access to the original. I have no doubt it's unethical to simply take the documents and upload them somewhere else as it does not recognize the effort in obtaining and assembling this collection ( a key point). It should be recognized a number of people do feel (justifiably) hurt by this, this shouldn't be overlooked in judging the issues.
So the circle goes around again to legal v ethical. I, personally, think the ethical issues out weight the legal in the way I view it and I joined the PCA for that reason.
Regards
Hugh
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HughC
Assembling a collection such as PCA has is a commendable and very worthwhile effort and does deserve due respect ( a key point). That PCA would like to exercise some control is certainly understandable due to the time and effort put in. Unfortunately not owning the content means they have no right to control it, they have the same right to copy it as everyone else has (key point) which is a point overlooked regardless of whether they had to pay for access to the original. I have no doubt it's unethical to simply take the documents and upload them somewhere else as it does not recognize the effort in obtaining and assembling this collection ( a key point). It should be recognized a number of people do feel (justifiably) hurt by this, this shouldn't be overlooked in judging the issues.
So the circle goes around again to legal v ethical. I, personally, think the ethical issues out weight the legal in the way I view it and I joined the PCA for that reason.
Hugh, I can't thank you enough for that. It was bothering me so much - the overlooking of important ethical issues in favor of all manner of microscopic inspection of legalistic details - that I had to shut off the computer and go over to the gym.
I beat myself up over there for almost two hours, and feel great, and felt better about coming back to the thread. Now, you've said all that needs to be said from my perspective. I just had a wonderful weekend amongst pen people up in San Francisco, where you can sense the community and good nature of the members and attenders. To read about someone simply ripping off the good will of an organization, over and above any of the mechanisms and protocols that caused those materials to be in place, just galls me no end. That people choose to focus on the other aspects, and not the harm to the good nature and spirit with which those materials were prepared by individuals who cared about pens and pen people, makes it worse.
I figured I was alone, but I value what you've written above, and that you've done so in a much less histrionic manner than I could have. Thank you.
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kirchh
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Nobody (except the public) owned the documents. The outrage is ridiculous, and sounds like sour grapes because it is more difficult to profit from something that didn't belong to anyone in the first place.
I want to emphasize the error here. Nobody -- including the public -- owned the
copyright to the works. The reproductions were owned by the creator (or party who arranged for their creation, etc.).
If you photocopy a copy of a public-domain Parker catalog, do you believe that you do not own that photocopy (not the copyright, just the actual photocopy), and that furthermore you must provide any member of the public access to it for free?
--Daniel
David answered your question, but I'll make the issue simple:
PCA has a library of scanned catalogs that were printed by others.
PCA thinks they have control or ownership of these scans (this is the first debatable point).
Similar scans of these catalogs are also available at archive.org.
PCA thinks these documents are copies of their documents (debatable, but probable and I'll even concede that they did come from PCA for the sake of the argument).
PCA thinks it is illegal for these documents to have been uploaded to archive.org (I think this is a point you are making, but we can toss it out if you're not).
PCA thinks it is unethical for someone else to upload their documents for free distribution to archive.org (the second debatable point).
PCA thinks it will lose revenue because of these documents being on archive.org (debatable, but I'll concede this point as well).
For the first point, I do not agree. I sympathize. It runs down many avenues on where the "originals" that were scanned came from, but the bottom line is that the information is owned by the public and not PCA.
For the second debatable point, I again sympathize. I do not agree. Public information is made available to the public. There is nothing unethical about that. It can't have been stolen, because that implies that PCA had ownership. They didn't. PCA was selling convenience, not the information itself.
I'm not sure whether you addressed the questions I asked -- I can't quite tell what you are answering where, so I'd appreciate a clarification:
If you photocopy a copy of a public-domain Parker catalog, do you believe that you do not own that photocopy (not the copyright, just the actual photocopy)?
Do you believe that you must provide any member of the public access to your photocopy for free?
--Daniel
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
I note that no evidence has been offered that a legal right of any sort exists to limit distribution of digital copies of public domain works, no matter who made said digital copy. I note that evidence has been presented at Fountain Pen Board that those who make digital copies of public domain works in fact have no legal right to limit distribution of said copies by... anyone. I note that those who engage in legal maneuvers to prevent dissemination of digital copies of public domain material put themselves at risk of committing copyfraud, a potentially actionable offense.
Attempts legally to control one's digital reproduction of public domain works appear to be nonsense.
I am inclined to test the theory on a large scale.
regards
david
-
Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online
I cheerfully note that there are no digital rights owned by any creator of a digital copy of a public domain works. "Reproductions" in this context is an unfortunately ambiguous term. The creator of a photocopy of a public domain work has the right to the few pieces of paper in his hand, not because he has any rights to the image, but because he owns... the physical paper. One may not take another person's 8 sheets of paper without his permission. To do so would be to steal. However, no one owns a digital copy of a public domain work. Once it is accessed it may be legally distributed at will. Nothing has been stolen, as any current possessor of the digital information has no claim to it.
I note that while no one has an obligation to distribute a digital copy in his possession of a public domain work free or otherwise (what does "for free" mean?), no one-- including he who copied first the public domain work-- can prevent others from disseminating further copies.
fun stuff.
-d