Why God Used Dwight L. Moody

Page 1 of 1 (19 items)
This post has 18 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 340
Calvin Habig | Forum Activity | Posted: Sun, Oct 9 2011 10:57 PM

Although I am not at all convinced that the copyright concerns are valid, I have removed this posting so there are no questions.

Posts 18023
Forum MVP
Graham Criddle | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 9 2011 11:42 PM

Hi Calvin

My concern would be copyright issues. The front page of the book says that it was copyrighted in 1923.

Unless you know it is now out of copyright and in the public domain you shouldn't be distributing it in this way

Sorry, Graham

Posts 18075
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Oct 10 2011 12:17 AM

According to U.S. Copyright law, since this work was published before January 1, 1978, it depends on whether the copyright was still in its first term then or had been renewed before January 1, 1978. If the former, "the copyright holder shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of 67 years." If the latter, the copyright "shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured." We don't know when/whether the copyright was renewed, so basically, "it's complicated."

BTW, I noticed that the drop-cap at the beginning of the book (the E in "EIGHTY-SIX years ago...") is an image rather than text, so it doesn't come across into Logos.

 

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Oct 10 2011 8:40 AM

Rosie Perera:

According to U.S. Copyright law, since this work was published before January 1, 1978, it depends on whether the copyright was still in its first term then or had been renewed before January 1, 1978. If the former, "the copyright holder shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of 67 years." If the latter, the copyright "shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured." We don't know when/whether the copyright was renewed, so basically, "it's complicated."

BTW, I noticed that the drop-cap at the beginning of the book (the E in "EIGHTY-SIX years ago...") is an image rather than text, so it doesn't come across into Logos.

In a way, it doesn't matter if the copyright was renewed or not.  In either case, the copyright expires 95 years from when it received its original securing (the original 28 years + the additional 67 years = 95 years).

Because this posting does violate copyright laws (The free distribution of copyright information without written approval - I did not see anything within the document that states that approval was obtained), Calvin, can you please remove the file.  You might need to contact Logos for this operation.

Posts 451
Mitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 18 2012 12:12 PM

Here's a useful resource for copyright terms. It comes from Cornell, so I think it's safe to assume that it's reliable.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

According to the table there, all works published in the U.S. prior to 1923 are in the public domain, so this work just misses the cutoff provided it was renewed.

If it wasn't renewed, however, it would indeed be in the public domain. 1923 + 28 = 1951 so there's no possibility that it falls into the "still in its first term as of 1978" bucket that Rosie mentioned.

Posts 2676
Michael Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 19 2012 8:09 AM

It is our duty to try to obey the law, as we know and understand it.

However, no one that has posted here knows that this document is in copyright.  If someone comes forward saying that they own the copyright, certainly it should be removed.  (That frequently happens on Project Gutenberg, for example.) But I think posting this is in the spirit of the copyright law. Copyright law is not just intended to protect the rights of the author.  That is only part of it.  It is also intended to protect the rights of the public.  That is why there is a limit to copyright.

Always, try to follow the spirit of the law, folllow your own conscience., but it is no one's job to be everyone else's conscience. 

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 340
Calvin Habig | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 19 2012 8:52 AM

In doing research online, I believe that it is legitimate to put up this resource. There seems to be ample evidence that the copyright on this work was NOT renewed. Therefore I am republishing it.  If you are uncomfortable using it, don't download it. 

6862.Why God Used Dwight L Moody.docx

Posts 190
EmileB | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 19 2012 10:44 AM
Thanks Calvin! Personally, I think its fine. I know this is OT, but I didn't have any other way of contacting... you have posted many Restoration Movement documents. Any chance that you have a copy of the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery? This would round out the collection of foundational documents for the RA. (Wouldn't it be great to get Gospel Advocate, Millenial Harbinger, etc in Logos??) Best wishes, and thanks for your work! Emile
Posts 340
Calvin Habig | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 19 2012 12:03 PM

Emile:

Please note that I have begun a new thread with that document per your request.

I did (and shared) v. 1 of the Millennial Harbinger in the old PBB format  as an experiment to see if I wanted toi tackle the whole 40 volumes, (I didn't!) , but haven't even looked at doing it in the newer PB format.

Best wishes,

Cal H

Posts 190
EmileB | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 20 2012 2:00 AM

Thanks Calvin!!! That's just great!!!

Yes, M. Harb. would be a very big project. Don't know if Logos would ever have enough interest from its customer base to get it through CP. Would be nice to have though!

Posts 1
Russell | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 30 2012 7:22 PM

Calvin,

What format do you currently have the 40 volumes in?  It would take some work but I might be able to help.

 

In Him,
Derrick 

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 30 2012 8:45 PM

I believe that it has a copyright.    http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Used-D-Moody/dp/1161605940/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338435820&sr=1-1#reader_1161605940

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 340
Calvin Habig | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 30 2012 9:15 PM

pdf.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 30 2012 10:19 PM

Room4more:
I believe that it has a copyright. 

Apologies: personally not know if copyright assigned to scanned images of public domain material is enforceable.

Wikipedia has => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessinger_Publishing that links to an article => http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/

Wikipedia also has => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud that includes one lawsuit and its outcome.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 31 2012 7:03 AM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):
Apologies: personally not know if copyright assigned to scanned images of public domain material is enforceable.
It is.  What is not copyrighted is the text.

Posts 8410
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 31 2012 11:10 AM

tom collinge:

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):
Apologies: personally not know if copyright assigned to scanned images of public domain material is enforceable.

It is.  What is not copyrighted is the text.

My understanding is that in most jurisdictions the act of mechanically fotocopying or scanning a two-dimensional PD original does not create a copyrightable work (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality ). So there is no copyright assigned to the scanned images, thus no enforcement.  

Running Logos 7 latest (beta) version

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 31 2012 11:17 AM

NB.Mick:

tom collinge:

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):
Apologies: personally not know if copyright assigned to scanned images of public domain material is enforceable.

It is.  What is not copyrighted is the text.

My understanding is that in most jurisdictions the act of mechanically fotocopying or scanning a two-dimensional PD original does not create a copyrightable work (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality ). So there is no copyright assigned to the scanned images, thus no enforcement.  

c'mon, u guy's are smarter than this......the blue "copyrighted material" at the top/bottom of the image is not what is copyrighted.....the "book" is copyrighted................last page 'Kessinger Publishing'...........

[when in doubt - throw it out]

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 8410
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 31 2012 12:07 PM

Room4more:

NB.Mick:

tom collinge:

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):
Apologies: personally not know if copyright assigned to scanned images of public domain material is enforceable.

It is.  What is not copyrighted is the text.

My understanding is that in most jurisdictions the act of mechanically fotocopying or scanning a two-dimensional PD original does not create a copyrightable work (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality ). So there is no copyright assigned to the scanned images, thus no enforcement.  

c'mon, u guy's are smarter than this......the blue "copyrighted material" at the top/bottom of the image is not what is copyrighted.....the "book" is copyrighted................last page 'Kessinger Publishing'...........

[when in doubt - throw it out]

why should it be copyrighted? It's the business of Kessinger and other such "publishers" to take PD material (they print off google books or other free sources) and sell it as ebooks or by print-on-demand.

The business model explicitly does not include any editorial work. They not even correct scan errors or the markings from library usage. You could create a new copyrightable work by making a new critical edition, compiling stuff, translating it or whatever. But that's not their idea. They simply take this stuff as is - after all, it's in the public domain, thus this is perfectly legal - and make a pdf or mobi file from it or print it. Purely mechanical reproduction (euphemistically called "faithful reproduction"). If this could create copyright, the owner would be google books or CCEL or whoever scanned this, not the one who printed or sold it. 

 

Running Logos 7 latest (beta) version

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 31 2012 12:15 PM

Well then let’s put it this way, If you are concerned with issues of copyright infringement then it would probably be best to just leave it alone…..better safe than sorry….

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Page 1 of 1 (19 items) | RSS
Copyright 1992-2015 Faithlife / Logos Bible Software.