copyleft

[czandra]

Leni wrote: ↑May 21st, 2020, 3:54 pm
"Unfortunately,... Copyleft is different from Public Domain: copyleft demands that all copies and modified versions of a work have the same rights in derivative works created later. Public Domain does not have this kind of demand, and we cannot guarantee that people using Librivox recordings will keep them free, exactly because they are put in the Public Domain. "

I applaud the artistic freedom tolerated here. ...

Looking in the discussions about "other topics" to find out about recording recent "copyleft" materials, I found the quote above. Sorry to hear that copyleft cannot be accorded to Librivox recordings.

Maybe we need to create a "copyleft bridge"....

[czandra]

This from a related conversation on the Author's Farce thread:

No copyleft allowed, only pure Public Domain. We have no legal staff and NO control over what might happen to a work once we release the recording, and hence we can not issue anything that requires even the barest minimum of distribution controls. For example, we can't guarantee non-commercial uses - our recordings have been found on ebay and audible. We can't guarantee that someone will include a credit to the original author. So it has to be pure Public Domain for us to handle it.

And note that for the international community such as EU, in many cases an author has a fundamental right to their work for the copyright period that they can not give away even if they wish. So new reader translations of things, reader-written etexts, etc are not allowed either.

This is not a very constraining situation - there are gazillions of old works unrecorded as yet.

Thanks, Todd

[czandra]

Thanks for this information. I'm learning about copyright and PD this way, as well as copyleft. I started a thread on the non-librivox forum for that, if anyone else is interested. Meantime, I'm happy with books that have "stood the test of time," even though that test can be as famously arbitrary as anything else we do. A well-organized but oft-rejected writer with a conscientious estate executor who doesn't throw things in the fire; a fire that bypasses the publishing house with its original MSs; original MSs that are published and popular while others which are brilliant but obscure languish.... all that goes into the mix of Public Domain, as well as the academic lines of disciples who pass down work because it's great, or because it's all they know, .....

You see where this leads one? I'm happy for Librivox, you're so lively. A person could learn a thing or two about writing, if one were a writer!

Czandra

[schrm]

hi,

i was reading the other thread with interest - but an admin could have transferred it into offtopic, i think.
i have to second the explanation of todd.

there is a fundamental difference in copyrights all over the world, at least two ways of thinking.
one way is copyrights in the usa, and having a public domain.
the other way is creator-rights, and gemeinfrei(heit) which follows in german speaking countries the concept of something like "no rights known".
google translates pd into gemeinfreiheit - but it has another meaning.

in some states, there is a paragraph relevant, which says something like: nobody can waive/give away/give up on his creator rights.
so, while others may be able to give a recording into the public domain, others are not.
and some further regulations may be void. eg, in case the creator doesn't claim the rights, the creator's rights will cease to exist and nobody, including the families, will be able to claim the rights then. but this may be subject to a decision by a court. in case, eg. some company, which specialsed on using librivox recordings, altered or maybe even unaltered, claims the rights for a copy of a recording.
and if the rights are claimed in another country, eg, there will be some discussion going on, which country's laws will be the ones to follow.
and in case this isn comlicated enough, imagine, the courts decision thinks, that the recording is falling under the laws of this thrd country, because..the rghts were claimed there.
so we have on librivox a recording linked, which is stored on archive.org servers, (which are maybe falling under canadas laws, also, see the argumentation of agatha christies estate), which was read by a reader living in country x, some heirs or? whoever may be living in country y, a lawsuit will take place which has to decide which countries laws are to respected, maybe country zed's, because the companies..

you know what i mean?

and last but not least, we have an example for something, whch is by far less confusing.
project gutenberg offered a german version of their website, they published with using american servers,only.
a german court has decided, that - also because of a german version of the website - pg has to respect german creators laws.
and what did pg do after that?
they had to take down the german version of the website, they closed access to pg from all german ip adresses, and...
because, as an ngo, they lost a court suit.

and all of that even without any copyleft.
while we had some discussions a few years ago, if it is even possible, to use creative common licenses in europe (where every state has its own creators laws, historically developed, with some regulations by the eu, which are changed right now, or in discussions, or...).
i honestly don't know the opinion of a lawyer, still.

edit: some typos and writing further and further.
it is a topic, i will never cease to find interesting, but i will never be able to know about for sure.

[czandra]

many thanks for this information. I think copyright has changed a lot in the last century, partly because so many people have published for profit, and estates have caught on that they can claim it (eg. AA Milne). In a way the state of copyright has made it more likely that projects like Librivox and Gutenburg will create a new standard: any old thing can be copyrighted, but only the priceless are free, sort of thing. State of copyright has a lot to do with the state of publishing, I think. One of the biggest changes there, is that authors are expected to churn out many books, while two centuries ago a writer might have mustered one. One of my faves is The book of Ebenezer Lepage, but it's copyrighted, so I can't read it here!

[czandra]

of course I don't mean to be glib about intellectual rights, and the need to live from one's wits. Valuing intellectual property is ephemera, though, and changing like an avalanche under our feet. Social "media" like fb and etc. are making authorship look like a thing of the past. They seem to be currently in a deep struggle with nation states (banning Australia over news copyrights, resisting new legislation that would require them to pay for news). Australians have forced them to comply at least minimally by signing out, cancelling their accounts.

In a world of words where goo___ and MS can data mine our thought patterns, in a world where 8 billion people are on-line and at least that literate, can we still think of single authors? Have we ever been sure of authorship - Shakespeare themselves might have had something to say about it. Some of Bach's work is credited to his students centuries later.

I mentioned Ebenezer LePage above because the book is of a man who wrote only one book, and its author wrote only one, I think, and neither of them lived to see their book published and admired, though it happened. I hope poets don't have to live in garrets anymore, but the reality is they have day jobs. It's all relevant to what we're doing here, I think, in a quirky way. Keeping people's work alive any way we can.

[schrm]

well, copyleft means, that everyone who uses this file has to put it into the same license.
we cannot assure that at all.
and we have some threads here, where librivoxers complain about recordings being sold on audible.
they changed the readers name and often cut the intros...

so, while we have decided that that is ok for us, and amazon/audible even don't want old books as audiobooks and soemtimes erases them after a complaint, we have here another example against constructs like copyleft.

another example is: one of the books i hosted as bc got published on archive.org. the guy begs for donations.
he is using not public domain pictures (at least here in europe, where most of german speaking people are living) accompanying the audio in a video,
can i do something about it?
other than reporting this in archives forums, not really. i have clicked the reporting button once, but there was no reaction. the reporting function is only for sexual violence, btw.
is this really bad, also because some people may get sued because of the pics in the vid? may happen, yes.

what i don't recommend, is, to compare things people and companies in their doings.
goo** amaz** mic** fac*** and so on all have lawsuits, really good lawyers and most people won't have as much money to pay even one of them.

well, what is left to say?

we had some discussions about a serial killer, who wrote a manifesto. according to critics, both brilliant and fascinating, but horrible.
he put his book not into the public domain and we can not publish it on librivox.
if he himself wanted soemthing like this, he would have done that.
maybe he wants to earn some money with his book, sometimes. he will be able to do that, then.

or let's mention mein kampf by hitler, too.
it is a topic...
which is rather hard yes.
also, this book is forbidden in german and austria, still.
regarding the copyrights, we are not the nazi regime (at least i hope so ), we do not print this book in millions, and we cannot ensure paying for that - or any other book, which is gemeinfrei in the eu, but not pd in the usa.
we even have another sister project for books like that, which only publishes things like that.

and occassionally, an author writes in this forum, looking for readers for his book.
some forum members even live of such earnings, working as a professional readers.
and some authors read and publish the books themselves, maybe.

do you know whatspad, eg?
it is something you want, i think.
authors write the chapters, putting them in this app, no rights or anything included, but to get feedback.
i bought 2 books in print, which i have read for great parts on whatspad, already.

there are so many blogs, videosites, podcast sites, radiostation thingies and so on..
honestly: when an author wants to publish a book in an audio version, he is able to do that.

[czandra]

Grüß Gott!

It's been nice chatting with you. For a smile after all this heavy topic: Yesterday I recorded a poem by Heinrich Heine in English that you might find amusing. It was for Open short poetry collection. I don't actually know where these recordings go once they're done. The book/ collection has to be finished first, but where they go after that, and how to find them, I'm not sure. I don't know what BC is either!

[Availle]

well, copyleft means, that everyone who uses this file has to put it into the same license.

No, that's not true. When it comes to artwork of any kind,

- copyright tells you what you're forbidden to do
- copyleft tells you what you're allowed to do

with it. "Share alike" is just a part of copyleft, often coupled with "modify" and not all of the licenses allow either or both.

[schrm]

@availle

interesting!
to be honest. i just googled and took the first two lines from wikipedia as a base for the definition.
and therefore, i was way off the topic, for sure. sorry for that.

but while i agree, that it is far more than the meaning i used, it is not usable for librivox.

on the one hand, at least, in case we should use one of the copyleft licenses (which are eg linux licenses like gpl, mozilla, or some cc licenses), we wouldn't be responsible for breaking the licenses committed by other people - but following, there is not much sense in using a license like this.
on the one hand, giving something into the pd is the top of copyleft, assuring everyones rights to do with the recording to your liking.
on the other hand, assuring the right to sell it - for everyone who wants that, eg, does nothing addditional.

also my humble opinion, because copyright and copyleft are somewhat complementary, they are also comparable. and that is rather a problem, than a feature.
to my understanding, we would maybe, with the help of country-differences in copyrights and constructs and acceptance of licenses, with good lawyers and much money, we would effectively restrict our recordings instead of assuring some additional (or explicitely claimed) freedoms. and: we could accidentally forbid other freedoms, which are valid for the pd. (i wrote oid, initially. i think, i have used that wrong for years now..)

there is a third aspect..
in countries, where it is not possible for an artist to give away a work into the public domain, the artist could try to use a copyleft license as alternative. i saw that on wikipedia quite a lot, but..
in these counties, i doubt that these licenses are more accepted than giving it to the pd.
as an example, in case some relatives claim the recordings as part of the heritage, i am quite sure, that the copyleft licenses will get void.
another case is, when they are not the heirs.
but i am not a lawyer and not an international law expert, so.. *shruggie*

in case you are interested: in the newspaper derstandard is an article about street photography.
and since i surf abotu differences in austrian and german copyrights laws for hours (there are wikipedia.de "for itself" relevant pages, and articles, and..), a really helpful link was posted there:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundertwasserentscheidung
when i was reading that, i thought: sort of several mindf**, which result in an emotionally and rationally totally understandable sentence.

---

@czandra

guten morgen und grüß göttin - that is a non-used greeting, which is used by some artists and some feminism interested people, eg..
grüß gott is a very formal and religiously based greeting, which is common in some areas of german speaking countries.
more in the south, where i live

may i explain some stuff, which maybe won't be that easy to understand...
lacking of skills..

bc is the book coordinator, a sort of middle management in the hierarchy? i don't think, most people would agree with that, including myself..
the person, who selected the book, enters the data in the mw, tries to be first level service and help. ideally, until a mc can take over and put it into the catalogue.
in your case, it is even more confusing, because a mc is the bc of the short poem collection

like every reader, every book has its own librivox catalogue page.
--> https://librivox.org/group/471 is the metapage for all poetry collection items
--> your recording will get into the catalogue as part of series item number 213. the link will lead to the book, when rapunzelina has collected enough recordings and created a book.

i am sorry to say, that "open" means not a copyleft license, nor opensource license, but that this collection needs more recordings

way off the topics again, and: not that humorous..
im sorry for that.
but i even hinted at arts, before i drank my first cup of coffee....

[Availle]

We're not going to use copyleft on LibriVox.
That ship has sailed 15 years ago.

Hence the discussion here is moot.
I'm off.

[schrm]

waving goodbye at availle, since she is sailing away