NA27/USB4 under copyright?

[Pablo Rodríguez]

Hi there,

I've subscribed to the list only to know why is the NA27 copyright
protected at all. It might be a misunderstanding (but I'm not 100% sure
that it is mine).

BTW, the link from manuscript comparator
(http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/) to the
discussion contains an extra hyphen that points to a non-existing Google
Group ("open-scriptures"). Replacing the link with
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/openscriptures/9XcB_4Ua6QU
might be a better solution.

First of all, for the following comments consider that I'm not a lawyer
and this isn't legal advice.

The original New Testament (the work itself) is in the public domain.
Why does the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft claim copyright over the NA27?
(I'm speaking of the text itself, not of the critical apparatus or
anything different from the Greek text.)

Well, I might be wrong, but I can only think of two exceptions in German
law (again; I'm not a lawyer and I'm not German):

-Electronic databases.
-Critical editions.

Electronic databases are protected as such (mainly with works in the
public domain) for 15 years
(http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__87d.html, translated in
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html#p0525).
This also protects typewriten texts from being copied and pasted. But I
guess this isn't the kind of protection The DBG (Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft/German Bible Society) is invoking, is it?

Just in case you wonder, electronic databases are protected only in the
EU (mandatory by Directive 96/9/EC
[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=344298:cs]). The US doesn't
protect databases, since the originality requirement is missing (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service).
Not accidentally, the database market is larger in US than in the EU (as
the European Commission neglects to consider).

Critical editions are protected in Germany (and other EU member states,
but this is optional in the Directive 93/98/EEC, article 5,
[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=294610:cs], repealed by
Directive 2006/116/EC
[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=438220:cs]) for 25 years (UrhG,
�75.3 [http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__70.html, translated in
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html#p0442]).

No doubt that the NA27 can be considered a critical edition (I know that
�wissenschaftliche Ausgabe� is literally �scientific edition�, but I
think �critical edition� is more accurate).

According to the German National Library (�Deutsche
Nationalbibliothek�), NAB27 was first published in 1993
(http://d-nb.info/941369706), so it will be protected in Germany until
the end of 2018 (see below). NA28 (available at
http://www.nestle-aland.com/de/na28-online-lesen/) was published this
year, so its critical text will be protected in Germany until January
1st, 2038.

Critical editions seem to be protected only in Germany, Poland, Slovenia
and Armenia (according to the German Wikipedia article on protection of
critical editions
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutz_wissenschaftlicher_Ausgaben]). As
far as I understand, protection for critical editions worldwide is the
exception rather than the rule (even in the EU).

Unless you plan to copy anything else than the critical text itself
(which has standard copyright protection [life+70 years]), I guess that
all you might have to do is blocking German, Polish, Slovenian and
Armenian users (http://www.ip2location.com/free/visitor-blocker).

Again, I'm not a lawyer myself and you might have to check that with
legal professionals.

And well, after having written all this message I found that the
critical text itself from NA27 might not be protected even in Germany.

Just accidentally reading http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/history/
(especially last paragraph [original at
http://www.nestle-aland.com/de/history/ not so assertive as the English
version]), it seems that the NA27 critical text is the same that the one
from NA26 (published in 1979). So, the critical text has enjoyed the
full protection term that is possible in the EU (up to 30 years).

Just in case it might help,


Pablo
--
http://www.ousia.tk

[Neal Audenaert]

The obligatory prefix: IANAL (I am not a lawyer) either and have only briefly looked into the NA 27. Given that you aren't a lawyer, I'm curious as to your interest in the topic?

I think their is a more simple approach to looking at the status of the text. My understanding is that the text of the NA 27/UBS4 is nearly identical to the UBS3, so if you don't care about the apparatus, you might start there and see if you can avoid the copyright issues altogether. Also, there is an SBL GNT that is available under much more permissive terms. It does contain a basic apparatus that allows the reader to identify the (relatively few) differences between that text and the NA 27. Others on this list understand the details far better than I.

However, as in most things, the copyright issues are as much social as they are legal. If the owners really want to protect their text, what you may be entitled to under the strictest terms of the law may be less important than the goodwill lost by asserting your rights. By the time you have to get a lawyer involved, everyone's already lost - especially in terms of demonstrating Christian charity. It is often better to end up with the short end of the stick than to enforce your rights via the legal system.

The GBS society's assertion of copyright was polite (as these things go) and picking a fight seems like a bad idea - not in line with the mission of either organization. I also think it's rather short-sighted on their part, especially for a resource that is of fundamental importance to the Christian and scholarly communities. Is there really no other way to fund this? Perhaps, but the business model of the publishing world (even the non-profit publishing world) remains firmly grounded in restricting (and thereby charging for) access to resources. Alternative models are unproven and carry lots of risks, both known and unknown. For an industry with multiple centuries of tradition, it's no trivial thing to adapt to the changes that have come up over the last forty years or so. 

Rather than fighting the old guard of intellectual property rights, however, I think we'd be better served by the academic/religious communities being aggressive in developing alternatives. If they want to take their ball home, fair enough. Make a better ball. That requires people of vision in places of influence. That is coming, those people are there and working, but we haven't arrived yet. The SBL GNT is a start (albeit flawed) in this direction. Times are changing, however, and better things are to come.

Neal

§75.3 [http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__70.html, translated in

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html#p0442]).

No doubt that the NA27 can be considered a critical edition (I know that

»wissenschaftliche Ausgabe« is literally “scientific edition”, but I
think “critical edition” is more accurate).

According to the German National Library (»Deutsche
Nationalbibliothek«), NAB27 was first published in 1993

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Scriptures" group.
To post to this group, send email to openscr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openscripture...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openscriptures?hl=en.

[Diego Santos]

The old Greek New Testament manuscripts and their transcription are in public domain, but they have some textual variants. The critical work of choosing the most likely original reading is an intellectual activity, and that is why the German Bible Society claims copyrights on the UBS4/NA27 text, not only the apparatus.

Fortunately we have good alternatives, like the already mentioned SBL GNT with a fairly permissive license, and the Nestle 1904 Greek New Testament, which is in Public Domain.


Diego Renato dos Santos

[Russell Allen]

By way of background I am a lawyer (but not a German one). As far as I can tell, (and this isn't legal advice - if you want to take on the GBS then go pay someone) the issue of copyright over the NA27 is complex, and grey. Maybe they can enforce their copyright claim, maybe they can't. Probably it would depend on which country we were talking about.

More broadly, I think the point made about this being a social question is a very good one. I would much prefer the GBS to freely choose to put the NA27 under a CC0 licence than for it to be forced on them by legal decisions.  They aren't bad guys. They have scholars to feed and good work to do, and the open content community hasn't yet shown that new ways of funding are sustainable.

Russell

openenglishbible.org

[Michael Aubrey]

I would add to that money from bible societies (including GBS) in general goes toward numerous good causes for the church--such as minority language translation projects.

Mike

---

From: Russell Allen <oeb...@openenglishbible.org>
To: openscr...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: NA27/USB4 under copyright?

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The issue of copyright is fascinating, and there was a lot of discussion in 2009 when the German Bible Society sent a letter to the MorphGNT project alleging copyright infringement. And that led to the shutdown of the popular Zhubert (later..Resurgence Greek and Re-Greek) site.

It is clear that the German Bible Society (GBS) will aggressively seek to enforce their copyright, using German law as well as American law (there are some differences) against anybody who directly uses their text without permission / license. And licensing is either rare or non-existent.

Exactly the status and relationship of the comparable UBS materials I am not sure, perhaps the NA material is more tech-friendly, however that should not particularly affect the text.  In some ways, it might be effectively one international copyright, with various complexities involved.

And I want to point out a situation that should also be considered.  If the Nestle-Aland copyright is solid, then the SBLGNT,  edited by Michael W. Holmes, can be considered essentially a derivative work, since the NA text is the base from which relatively minor modifications are made.

This is the description from the SBLGNT site.

"The SBLGNT is edited by Michael W. Holmes, who utilized a wide range of printed editions, all the major critical apparatuses, and the latest technical resources and manuscript discoveries as he established the text. The result is a critically edited text that differs from the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies text in more than 540 variation units."
http://sblgnt.com/

I'm pretty sure far more than 99% compliance with the Nestle Aland text on the variant units.  And they are acknowledging, de facto, that the NA text as the base, and they made a certain small number of variants in the text.  One (e.g. GBS) could argue that the variants alone are the creative material and should only be published separately, that it is a breach of copyright to include the base NA-27 material. Or they could demand license fees.

The GBS has already shown a willingness to be aggressive in protecting their text, especially against low-resource opponents like the Open Source groups and projects.  If they wanted to be consistent in position, they could easily take an aggressive, similar position against the SBLGNT text, since that text is simply derivative to the NA-27 text.  

The reasons they have not are probably more due to appearance, also perhaps the complexities with the UBS, and also the significant resources and clout of the SBL group -- more than any innate difference in position. Surely, legally, if they have an enforceable copyright on the NA-27 text as their creative work, they could go against any work that they perceive derivative works.  e.g. There are a number of apparatus units that appear to use the NA work as their base, they could also be targets.  Maybe some other textual editions in addition to the SBLGNT.

Not that any actions of this nature are likely, but people should be aware of the overall situation.  The MorphGNT attack was unexpected at the time.  The attitude of the German holding group is rather aggressive, and some would say arrogant.

===============

Sidenote:  In the case of English Bibles it seems that variations are introduced (between editions of one Bible, or in new translations) precisely for the purpose of "clearing copyright" (my phrase).  Ie. being different enough that any earlier text will be reluctant to directly accuse of overuse of a previous copyrighted edition. Most translations do not take a "clean room" approach (a computer phrase for engineering without looking at the earlier projects). The new version wants to make enough distinction in editions to help for a longer copyright protection.  Also they make changes to make their own copyright enforcement easier (similar to how maps make small changes that are often unnoticed, some English versions do not announce their edition changes.)

Could something similar happen in the preparation of a version like the SBLGNT ?  .. "let us lean towards differences with the NA text, on our grey areas".   Surely possible. They could easily want to have more variant units.  It is easier to sound "creative", and less derivative, with 1000 differences rather than 100.   Is this one component of how the modern edition sausage is made ? 

===============

My own view. All these texts we are discussing are ultra-corrupt texts produced by gentlemen in the Hortian Fog.  Thus, personally, I do not consider them remotely to be actually the true word of God, and whatever fights occurs on those turfs .. c'est la vie.

 Now, I do use sites like John Hurt and BlueLetterBible that might be on the outskirts of such issues (e.g. John Hurt uses an Alexandrian and a Westcott-Hort Greek text, I have not checked the sources).  Even if we view the Hortian offshoots as totally corrupted by false premises, it is true that in the real world of Bible text discussion, we get involved in comparison discussions.  That is one reason I like the John Hurt site, it is so good visually for quickly seeing the basic textual decisions.  Similarly I find LaParola quite helpful for quickly seeing the variant units.  LaParola, though, is an example of a site that is largely NA apparatus derivative.  There is a whole cottage industry of such derivatives, but afaik LaParola is the only one that has succeeded in making the experience quick and easy to find the basic information on the puter.

So, why do I care ?  I have always been interested in the copyright aspects of such issues, and remembering seeing Elisha Qimron speak in Talpiot a bit after he won the victory over BAR on the DSS case, effectively using home court advantage.

On the GBS approach, knocking out the MorphGNT and Zhubert (although it is said that Zhubert was sort of moving in other directions anyway) it was fascinating reading the wildly divergent views in the blogosphere about these copyright issues, especially in the heated 2009 period.

(From that reading around, I could put together a post with some of the urls and comments from Peter Kirk, Roger Pearse, David and Tim Baylym, Tim Bulkeley, Stan Gundry, Weston Ruter, Hans Dampf and others.  However, for those interested, it is fun to simply search and read).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
http://purebible.blogspot.com/