Would distributing a single Encarta article have a substantial effect on the market for Microsoft Encarta? I find the matter of fair use debatable, and I encourage the site owner very much to go through with a court case. In the meantime, it is not our job to prematurely decide whether or not the use is infringing -- we can just sit back and relax. It seems paranoid to remove a link because someone, at some point, might interpret the linked content as infringing, in which case it is highly unlikely that linking sites would in any way be concerned.
Lastly, theft and copyright infringement have nothing to do with each other. Please do not use incorrect analogies. The text of "On the Jews and their Lies" is of high relevance and importance for the understanding of Luther's person, and I find it despicable to engage in self-censorship even of relevant links in the name of the fiction of "intellectual property". Wikipedia should set an example for common sense, not for paranoia and fear.
Trough a failure to renew the copyright in , this fine translation has fallen into the public domain. May it cause thinking Christians to look closely at the nature of their relationship with God, and not as an incitement to evil. The assertion by the Canadian indicates B. Further, I can see that in the later printing which retained the copyright, , that there are no changes that I can readily see. The page owner also asserts at least one other book to be out of copyright and now in the public domain, but I have not researched that.
Welcome to media.ctsfw.edu
Looking at some of the links on "reactor-core. I find some of the pages that comprise the whole to be of questionable value. It is for others to determine for themselves if they are of the same opinion, but on moral and ethical grounds, I could not. It should be noted that while the set is called Luther's Works, each volume came out in different years and was added to the set at those times.
Also, two different publishing houses, Fortress and CPH Concordia Publishing House published individual volumes that comprise the set and both have copyrights not to mention any holding by the CD-ROM version people in cooperation with the publishing houses. The volumes are on a large variety of subjects, but each volume is a book unto itself.
The gentleman who owns "reactor-core. That is more than half the book! I don't think that that constitutes "fair use. Herr Eloquence, I did not think that you were the sole author of the article. As a matter of fact, one of the disturbing things was a name that I found associated with the effort when I first looked at it. I did not think it wise of the individual make comments that I did not think he was qualified to make. That was what initially upset me not to mention the fact of the questionable use of "Vol.
As a matter of fact, by excerpting as he did, he left out important segments to include comments that 'wish he Luther had not written what he did,' etc. Volume 47 is number 4 of 4 on the Christian in Society. In vol. The other volumes include many positive things if one were to read them, e. As to the "viewpoints of other congregations," I suspect you meant synods as congregations compose synods, supposedly of like mind in doctrine, or at least as some Lutheran church bodies understand the term.
You will find that the word synod can have more than one meaning. As to church polity, I won't even get into that issue as polity varies from denomination to denomination. There are those more qualified to edit than I. I just point out the biased stance that the article appears to take and the fact that copyright infringement may be in play.
Best Regards, P.
Not quite sure where to start in continuing this discussion, let me start with the copyright status of the work On the Jews and Their Lies. First of all, the text of the work first appears in German in , followed by a latin translation in The text in its original language appears in the authoritative Weimar Ausgabe, The date of this edition is So, the translator may create a derivative work without permission. This translation is, to the best of my knowledge, the only one ever done of this text into English.
BUY ON AMAZON'S NEVER EASY
If you'd like to do one and donate it to the public good, I'd be willing to post it. Now, the only remaining question is whether or not the work was renewed. The first edition of the work appeared in According to the evidence mentioned by PE, which I have verified, the work was either renewed or entered a second edition in It's difficult to tell which.
Complicating matters is that a good number of copyright renewals are not recorded in the Library of Congress' online databases. Worse, they will not certify the results of any search that they do for you. To discover the status, I've contacted the publisher, who holds the rights to the set. I'll need to do some digging to provide references to the definition of an educational purpose and will add this info later.
- The caging of George James;
- SLAVE TO THE SURFERS: A Rough Beach Gangbang Short (Bouncing Beach Babes).
- Luther’s Works Upgrade (vols. 58–60) (3 vols.).
- Pearl of Fire?
- Red Pottage;
He is a regular witness before congress on copyright issues. In the mean time, I'm content to let the link stand. Laura N. Gasaway, J. Therefore, Augsburg Fortress is correct; the still hold the copyright in this work. Warning from US Copyright Office on trusting the office's records: "Searches of the Copyright Office catalogs and records are useful in helping to determine the copyright status of a work, but they cannot be regarded as conclusive in all cases.
- Clean and Organize your Home (Smart Style)?
- BUY ON AMAZON'S NEVER EASY.
- Martin Luther - Wikipedia.
- roundleterere.tk: Luther's Works - Christianity / Religion: Kindle Store?
- Luther's Works Comparative Table of Contents.
- Focus on the Solutions (Small Book Series 1).
The complete absence of any information about a work in the Office records does not mean that the work is unprotected. Project Gutenberg: "Rule 6 in the Copyright HOW-TO describes the situation in which an item copyrighted between and may be in the public domain if it was not renewed. Items from and afterwards were automatically renewed; items prior to are in the public domain. I called the publisher.
To verify, You are welcome to call Augsburg Fortress also. I have an inquiry in to Fordham as well. Will report back what they say. Short quotations and excerpts, however, are fair use. I can provide links, if anyone would find that helpful. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us.
Staff members report that Forham University is not responsible for the content of the Internet History Sourcebook. They host these documents for Dr. Paul Halsall, who is no longer with the University. I have initiated an attempt to reach him. Since I had not been able to find Dr.
One of the librarians called the University of North Florida, where Dr. Halsall last taught. The librarian was told Dr.
Concordia Publishing House
Halsall no longer works for an academic institution. I was given the email of another person associated with the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, who will check their files for a permission letter. I will report back when I learn more. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources.
This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Also note that a talk page is not an article. It is a place to explain why edits and additions are made or suggests such. Pursuant to the Wikipedia policy on Dispute Resolution, the following post made to User talk:Doright is also made here, on the discussion page of an article involved:. Doright, I'm sure you would like to be taken seriously as an editor, but in the past few days discoveries have been made in some of your edits where you have represented words as coming from someone they haven't, and where you have quoted only portions of a statement with the effect of suppressing balancing views that the original author had stated and distorting the thought.
Please read that section and other policies and follow them. Please stop making personal attacks upon other editors.