Disputatio:Patrologia Latina

Aunque la discusión comenzó -y al parecer terminó- en el 2006, los aspectos abarcados siguen plenamente vigentes.

Me tomo la libertad de citar el artículo in extenso, advirtiendo que fue obtenido directamente de la wikisource a la que puede accederse dando click en el título de este post.

I am only uploading volume 18, containing the gothic bible and a gothic grammar, but I wanted to create a framework for future uploads of other volumes. It is difficult to squeeze the entire volume on a single page (ca. 7M), but splitting it would be even more difficult, because of the (many!) footnotes.

We will probably have to split the text, even though it is the more difficult of the two solutions. Some browsers have dificulties handling pages larger than just a few hundred k, so 7M is way too large for a single page (and for many users it will take an eternity to open, even if their browser can handle the size). I think we have to find a way to split up the page. Christian S 14:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I definitely agree with this. I’m sure that each of our pages can have its own footnotes moved with it. A Bible can certainly be divided according to the usual books of the Bible. If the footnotes for the beginning must wait for the apocalypse they may never be read. :-)
The other complaint that I want to register is about the use of all capitals on the title page. I know that the PL and PG were given to these long winded title page descriptions following a precedent that was more characteristic of earlier centuries. Nevertheless, the capital letters were in different sizes. Following modern conventions for this would make the page far more readable. Eclecticology 17:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
ok, I struggled with my browser to upload this, and the format was badly jumbled (the html-footnote tags are not rendered properly) — I think I am not quite ready to upload this stuff. Keep in mind that the entire Patrologia consists of 221 volumes of 4-7 MB each. I could in principle upload these with an automated script, but the copy-and-paste into the textarea input drives me nuts. I agree that it should be split up, but this will also have to be automated. The capitals issue is minor compared to all this. The original is printed in capitals, so capitals it is. There are a lot of different font sizes, and someone would have to go manually over the text and apply fontsize tags. That’s just wasted effort, imho. This is a reference work, where you grep for particular passages, and not something you read from cover to cover, so never mind the capitals on the front page… Anyway, I will not upload any other volumes until I have found a way of (a) conveniently arranging vol. 18 and (b) have automated the upload to format the remaining volumes accordingly. regards, 09:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) en:User:Dbachmann.
another point is, if we split up the file, it will be more inconvenient to search and download them. The Patrologia may be better suited as a Gutenberg text. However, Project Gutenberg requires a “due diligence” check that lists the differences from the printed original for every 20th page. That’s a lot of work. I checked a few pages, and I am confident that I am indeed uploading the mere plaintext of Migne, but I wouldn’t sign a declaration that there is not a few bytes left over here or there that were inserted by whoever digitized this. 10:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I’m well aware how big the PL is, and how each volume is a big folio. The important thing here is how it can be best accessed by the end user. The reason to avoid capitals is also to make it easier for users. Reading the PL from cover to cover has nothing to do with it. Lower case is much easier that playing with font sizes. Eclecticology 07:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I have not understood correctly the purpose of Wikisource. Understand that I am familiar with PG, and I tried to contribute to WS in a similar spirit: The work uploaded must be out of copyright, or GFDL. The PL, as it was printed, is out of copyright. Uploading Migne, my aim is to make accessible the text as it was printed in 1848. If they chose to print capital letters in 1848, I will upload the text in capital letters: my aim is not to make a new edition of the PL to accomodate 21st century readers (that would be a task far beyond me). “Reading from cover to cover” has a lot to do with “making it easy for the user”: I expect that users of this text will want to search in the text, and not click through the chapters a page at a time. If you split up the text, you may make it easy for users who want to read a page at a time, but you annoy users who want to search the entire text. A far more pressing question, imo, is, how to format the footnotes and the column-number-anchors for wiki (so the html-tags don’t show up in the text).
For example: We are having an argument at en:Pope_Silvester_II whether or not Gerbert was an astrologer. I uploaded the writings of Gerbert to Patrologia_Latina_Vol_139_Silvester_II to explore this. The text being on one page, I can very quickly scan all occurrences of horoscopum, Mercurium etc. If I had split the text in 50 chapters, it would have taken 50 times as long. This is in favour of leaving the writings of a single author on one page. We can very well split up the volumes by author, though. 07:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this; my source for the Historia Scholastica of Petrus Comestor is the PL; it seems better to upload the texts by author rather than by source. After all, we don’t index things like Beowulf and Judith as Cotton Vitellius A.xv. While I see the validity of’s argument about searching, for something as long as the Historia Scholastica, or the Summa Theologia, there should be separate pages for each major book or section, with subsections on each page.Notcarlos 20:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[recensere] Free of copyrigh?

The note says: “The digital text may have been converted from the “Patrologia Latina Database”, Copyright 1996 Chadwyck-Healey Inc. (see http://pld.chadwyck.com/ ). Since it is the plaintext of the Patrologia, published between 1844 and 1855, it is free of Copyright.” Please correct me if I am wrong, but diffusing a copyrighted electronic text, even in converted form, is a violation of copyright, in this case a violation of Chadwyck-Healey’s copyright, regardless of the fact that the printed original may be and in this case actually is free of copyright.–OL ( 09:40, 27 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC))

It’s a little bit problematic to scrape more than some volumes due of the database protection in the European Union. A public domain version of vol. II can be found now at http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiae00unknuoft (without OCR) — 23:50, 12 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I’m no lawyer, but whta form of copyright is held by http://pld.chadwyck.com/ ? Only on the process of digitalization, not on the text itself, which once wikified, stripped, cut down and restructured will become quite different from the source. What’s the state of our text confronted with Chadwyck-Healey’s one? Maybe we should refurbish our text ASAP… – εΔω 15:01, 5 Martii 2006 (UTC)
As for Vol.II, that’s great! We could OCR it without breaking any copyright.
I’m afraid to have to inform you that the first posting above is correct: copyright in the Patrologia Latina Database is held by ProQuest Information and Learning Company and its subsidiaries, the publishers of the Chadwyck-Healey databases. The online reproduction of any text downloaded or otherwise derived from the Patrologia Latina Database, even in a modified form, is expressly forbidden under the database license as well as under U.S. and U.K. copyright law. We must therefore ask you to remove any text derived from Chadwyck-Healey databases from Wikisource.
The CD-ROM and online versions of the Chadwyck-Healey Patrologia Latina Database are made available to authorized users at institutions which have purchased the database. Under the end-user license agreement signed by the institution, users are permitted to make single copies of texts for personal use or internal educational use, but ‘Downloading of all or parts of the Products in a systematic or regular manner so as to create a collection of materials comprising all or part of the Products is strictly prohibited whether or not such collection is in electronic or print form.’ Publishing this material on Wikisource is a direct violation of this agreement.
In addition, although the the text of the print source, meaning the rare 221-volume set published by Migne between 1844 and 1865, is indeed in the public domain, the Patrologia Latina Database is protected within the U.S. as a collective work and within the U.K. as a database and therefore excerpts downloaded from the database cannot be treated as if they were in the public domain.
Matt Kibble, Development Manager, Literature, ProQuest Information and Learning, Cambridge, UK

First of all: if Chadwyck-Healey Inc. have some copyrights on those texts, those will be delete as soon as possible.
But I don’t understand: the plain text of Patrologia Latina is in Public Domain because of his age.
The copyright is only on the Patrologia Latina Database, but could not protect the text in PD.
For example: Ciceronis Opera omnia is in Public Domain because of his age, if I write a book or a CDrom using the Cicero’s texts I held the copyright on the book/CDrom, but not on the original Cicero’s texts, that remain anyway in Public Domain.
Otherwise anyone who write a copyrighted book/CDrom/website using the Ciceros’ texts could pretend the copyright on those ancient texts writed by Cicero.
Sorry, if I have no reason, but I would understand better.
And sorry for my english… :) —Accurimbono 17:50, 12 septembri 2006 (UTC)

They do not have copyright on the text. They have copyright on their database. Afaict, Wikisource did not copy the intrinsic properties of the database, such as its architecture or searchability, but only its content, i.e. the text, which is public domain. Therefore there is no copyright infringement by Wikisource. ThomasV 21:48, 12 septembri 2006 (UTC)
In addition, they might have a copyright of a special formating (a very special and unusual one), on a special selection or collection with other texts, on remarks and so on; but the text will stay in PD like ThomasV said. oldwikisource:User:-jkb-, 06:23, 13 septembri 2006 (UTC)

Just to soothe any cry, and as I stated some months agfo, I see a lot of strange markup tags that don’t belong to Minge at all and have to be deleted. Especially if Wikisource has nothing to do with them… εΔω

To clarify: the printed text of Migne’s Patrologia Latina is in the public domain, which means that anyone who has access to these rare texts would be free to re-key or scan the text from the print volumes and publish them online. However, the electronic text of the Chadwyck-Healey database is an entirely different matter. The digitisation has been carried out at considerable expense, through double-keying from the source texts, SGML encoding, building into a full-text database and publishing on CD-ROM. Chadwyck-Healey’s copyright therefore covers the electronic version of text itself, not just the formatting. The fact that the source volumes on which the electronic text is based are in the public domain does not alter the fact that copying the contents of the CD-ROM on this scale is an infringement of copyright.

In addition, this is an infringement of contract law: Chadwyck-Healey CD-ROMs are sold to libraries, and the library is bound by the end-user agreement mentioned above. A library user who systematically copies and publishes content from this CD-ROM has therefore caused a serious breach of the contract between the publisher and the library.

Please delete this material within the next week.

Matt Kibble, ProQuest Information and Learning, 4th October 06

  • As far as I understand the copyright laws, there isn’t any copyright on the text itself as an endless stream of characters und punctuation. If any formatting, coloring, layout or tagging is in there may be a Copyright but only on these addons, and this copyright exists only in that case of a high artistic level. These levels are put to a very high extend by court decisions.
As an simple example take a page from the Proquest Source and type only the letters und punctuation into your wiki, there isn’t any copyright problem. As an simple example: If you look a their possible nice coloring and you are using the same, there may by the possibilty of a copyright violation concerning the color.
If the paragraphs of the ProQuest text follow exactly the formatting of the original text, they do not have any copyright on this item.
The things the ProQuest guys are trying to do is simple copy fraud.

My Wikiname is Jörgens.mi and i’m active on the german wikisource. — 15:28 MEZ 2006 10 05 jörgens.mi

There is a big difference between copying the layout, your sgml, your database and copying the single characters of the orignal text. How can you prove in an way that one of the words have been taken from your cd, when nothing of your work or database or what else ever is in the text. By the simple work of scanning you didn’t earn any type of copyright at all. Your possible protected parts of your work -if the artistic level may be high enough- is only the layout and the posibility or database rights. On the other hand is a CD itself a wealthy database work? These parts of laws are typically used for a set of servers databases like a database system of university library or the servers of i. e. Brockhaus.
To relax the situation I will offer you the following idea. Simply start with the volume II of this opus, which you can find here http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiae00unknuoft (as mentioned above). Use the time needed to finish this volume to search for an alternative source. As far as I know the internet archiv the other volumes will be filled in soon. And if there is another source available there is no need to mention the partners form above anymore. And free Knowledge will be available to everybody. I think ProQuest miss a big chance to position themselves in a free market, and an good optortunity to do some good promotion. — 18:54 MEZ 2006 10 05 jörgens.mi

I would like to support this suggestion. And it is worth to contact the Internet archive to hurry up the speed making available the other Migne volumes – there are fine guys there who have very strong sense for FREE CONTENT like Wikisource. Why not ask them directly??? de.wikisource user FrobenChristoph — 20:47, 5 octobri 2006 (UTC)

Just for information, there is no database protection law in America, and in CH there are also no equivalent laws available, that there is any Copyrigt on the pure ASCII (UTF-8) Text The contents is not from me directly, I just transferred Information on the De:ws Scriptorium — 22:51 MEZ 2006 10 05 jörgens.mi

[1] 05:21, 6 octobri 2006 (UTC)

…which is an interresting decision in case of slides, but the way the judges argued could be used for texts as well, I guess. oldwikisource:User:-jkb- 07:50, 6 octobri 2006 (UTC)

Just another point which is has no direct connection to la.ws. If there is no Copyrigtht to the text the library can’t break an unlawfull contract, because items against laws can’t be part of a contract and are without any meaning. jörgens.mi 12:55 MEZ, 6 octobri 2006 (UTC)

@Accurimbono That´s no problem most of us speak english. All important information will be translated and transferred to here, so that the complete discussion is concentrated here. We are interested in such things, because we may face them in the future too. jörgens.mi 14:31 MEZ, 6 octobri 2006 (UTC)

Ok, translating and trasferring here all the discussions should be important to understand all the aspects of the legal situation. —Accurimbono 07:47, 7 octobri 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, it is possible to bind libraries etc. which buy the database to an end-user agreement that prohibits them from copying it, PD or no. This will apply exclusively to such persons/bodies as have signed such an agreement. Obviously, wikimedia is in no such situation and cannot be held to a licence-agreement they never agreed to in the first place. Do we know this text came from the Chadwyck-Healey edition? no. But I think it is very likely, seeing that they have the only digitized text available. They could conceivably prove it is from their version by pointing out mistakes that will be unique to their version (either genuine mistakes, or “mistakes” placed for this very purpose). These “mistakes” will then argubly be the property of Chadwyck-Healey, and we will be forced to remove them (and do so gladly, I daresay). Apart from that, I do not see they have any legal claim to the text. As for the html tags in the text, these simply indicate pagination and footnote structure of the original and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Chadwyck-Healey database structure (but their syntax should be wikified so that the footnotes show up as actual links). 18:07, 6 octobri 2006 (UTC)

About the HTML tags: this is a very important thing! Thanks, —Accurimbono 07:47, 7 octobri 2006 (UTC)
El esfuerzo del usuario es tremendo, y aunque sólo hay 2 volúmenes publicados -el 18 y el 139- el trabajo que implicaron fue enorme. El proyecto parece estar estancado desde el 2006, por la cuestión delicada de los problemas sobre copyright.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.