Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Legal defintions of public domain, etc
Shlama all--

I will make this as a separate topic as well, so that all have a chance to see and understand.

Here is the proof of what I am saying. You can look at hundreds of legal sites on the internet and they will all tell you the same thing. This one is from <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> ... 8-a.html#1. I have bolded what I feel are the most relevant portions and added some commentary:

A. Welcome to the Public Domain

The term "public domain" refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark or patent laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it.

[NOTE from AGR: This means, as Christina pointed out, that AENT is protected by copyright even if public domain resources are part of its' collection. Attribution of sources, by defintion, means I ackhowledge I don't "own" them.]

You are free to copy and use individual images but copying and distributing the complete collection may infringe what is known as the "collective works" copyright. Collections of public domain material will be protected if the person who created it has used creativity in the choices and organization of the public domain material.

[NOTE from AGR: AENT more than meets this test. I have been very creative in when I use sources, when it is my own work. The many unique features of AENT more than prove this out. I did not just "copy" these things but added greatly to what was there, used way different terminology, expanded footnotes and added Aramaic text.]

This usually involves some unique selection process, for example, a poetry scholar compiling a book, The Greatest Poems of e.e. cummings.

There are four common ways that works arrive in the public domain:

expiration of copyright: the copyright has expired.

failure to renew copyright: the owner failed to follow copyright renewal rules.
dedication: the owner deliberately places it in the public domain.

[NOTE from AGR: This applies to Paul Younan. He literally placed his work, which I helped him with, in the public domain.]

no copyright protection available: copyright law does not protect this type of work.
Let's look at each of these routes into the public domain more closely.

1. Expired Copyright

Copyright has expired for all works published in the United States before 1923. In other words, if the work was published in the U.S. before January 1, 1923, you are free to use it in the U.S. without permission.

[NOTE from AGR: This applies to Murdock.]

As an example, the graphic illustration of the man with mustache was published sometime in the 19th Century and is in the public domain, so no permission is required to include it within this book. These rules and dates apply regardless of whether the work was created by an individual author, a group of authors or by an employee (the latter sometimes referred to as a "work made for hire.")

[NOTE from AGR: Murdock published his work in the 1850's...I couldn't think of a better example myself. The rest is just a detailed description from these principles. ]

Because of legislation passed in 1998, no new works will fall into the public domain until 2019 when works published in 1923 will expire. In 2020, works published in 1924 will expire and so forth. If a work was written by a single author and published after 1977, the copyright will not expire until 70 years after the author's death. If a work was written by several authors and published after 1977, it will not expire until 70 years after the last surviving author dies.

[NOTE from AGR: This is exactly the point I make in the Refiners Fire essay whose link I gave at the beginning of this thread. Copyright is life plus 70 years. I studied law at a Catholic University of all places back in the day, so I know what I am talking about though I didn't pursue it as a career.]

So you see my friends, it is Bauscher and others who have been lying to you. And it is Bauscher and others who clearly, as I said, do not know the legal or practical ramifications--let alone the definitions--behind their accusations. They can twist and spin and writhe all day in their paranoia but the law is the law. It won't change 200+ years of statutory jurisprudence.

I know the laws of man and I know the laws of YHWH. I have violated NEITHER in the production of AENT.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Hello Andrew,

You wrote:
Quote:so no permission is required to include it within this book.
Permission is not the issue; Attribution is the issue- Proper attribution.
To avoid plagiarism, one may copy a public domain work, but proper attribution must be given.
You are focusing on copyright and permission for public domain material, but that is not the point in question; proper attribution is.

I am free to use Lamsa's 1933 Bible translation, which is now posted on the internet, free to download, all 66 books, as I recall. However, I am not free to publish it in my name without giving proper attribution to Lamsa as the author.

Surely, you see the unethical nature of that, do you not?

Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)