danbalogh
commented
1 year ago I suggest that the copyright holder should be the same as the intellectual author of the edition indicated in the <respStmt>. For the intellectual author, I suggest (see also the new comment in the googledoc EGD 11.1.2):
- the intellectual author is the encoder alone if: a, the encoder has taken a published edition and encoded it while carefully collating it with one or more reasonably good and more or less complete facsimiles (the most typical way DHARMA editions are created) b, the encoder has edited a previously unpublished text from a reasonably good and complete facsimile
- the intellectual author is more than one person including the encoder if: a, the encoder has worked from a published edition and has not collated with a facsimile or the collated facsimile was very poor and/or very incomplete b, other project members than the encoder have contributed substantially to the edition
I'm not sure what we should do about translations. In our current setup, the identity of the translator is indicated by a @resp or @source on the translation div itself, so encoding the translator in the header would be redundant. If you think it is nonetheless necessary, then I think the translator should primarily be indicated in the responsibility statement, but if we wish to keep copyright for translations separate, then it may be necessary to record the translator in all three places, and to create subitems of copyright if TEI allows that.
@arlogriffiths , by your concept, copyright over the XML document as a whole is shared by the editor and the translator. Is that desirable, or would it be better to add a disclaimer under copyright saying that translations by someone other than the intellectual author are copyright the translator? If shared copyright over the entire file is what we want, then my above suggestion "the copyright holder is the intellectual author" could be modified to "the copyright holder(s) is (are) the intellectual author(s) plus any translator(s) other than the intellectual author".
arlogriffiths
This issue concerns the general issue of whether we can finally move from using v3 to using v4. (I think the move was delayed because developing v2 of EGD has taken much more time than Axelle foresaw when she created v4.)
A more specific issue is the attribution of copyright.
The current template (v3) states in line 44 of v3:
<!-- replace year and name, use format "Forename1 Surname1 & Forename2 Surname2" or "Forename1 Surname1, Forename2 Surname2 & Forename3 Surname3" if necessary — the copyright is that of the encoder(s) -->The same is currently still found in line 45 of the unreleased draft of v4.
I have not been following the rule that only the encoder claims copyright, There are many inscriptions mainly encoded by team members X though the editing/translating has been done by X and Y. In such cases, I have myself claimed copyright for X and Y and recommended team members to to the same.
If everyone agrees that it should not always be (only) the encoder who claims copyright, then we need to furnish some suggestions for how else to go about filling in these lines of code. We specifically need to address the question of when the author of a printed edition should be mentioned in the copyright statement.