BF, what's the copyright status on this material? --
STG
Not sure. It was on a gnostic web site without any clear indications. btw, I have read this book it comes from, so it may be a prob, but it also may not because the source for the translation comes from scrolls dated in the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. To put a picture of the scrolls is no different than to show the translation. I'm not exactly sure how this works, but it's definitely, and upgrade for New Age, as Larry Sanger asked. I've only just begun to show the depth of knowledge and the sources they come from on that topic, contrary to my earlier revelations, which were based on years of study in many key slanted areas revised into meaningless drivel by scared people who think they really have a clue what New Age is about =)
[1] There is no good reason, that I can see, to think that this translation is public domain. Is there any that you can see? --
LMS
The translation can be found on http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sjc.html and there is no reference any place on the site about copyrights. James Robinson and Elaine Pagels are some of the many translators of the Nag Hammadi scrolls, they did not write them. Since they are as old as the New Testament, isn't this like saying we can't quote any scripture here ? ~BF
- No, it's not. Translation is an active process that results in a new work, which can (and usually is) subject to copyright law, just as other works are. Also, note that the publish date is 1990; it's virtually unimaginable to think that this isn't under copyright. Given this, I'm going to nuke the page; if I'm wrong, we can always recover it from the prior revision. -- EdwardOConnor
Fine, then we can compromise with a small article reviewing the Sophia, with a link to the web site. ~BF
- An article about the Sophia would be fine. As for the link, I would like to determine whether or not the webmaster of that page is posting it illegally. --STG
- Good compromise, BF! :-)
translations ARE copyright
I am having a look into the provenance of this; The Nag Hammadi scrolls, I seem to recall, are a subject of debate in some historical circles. sjc
I've got some email from a person who quotes liberally from the Nag Hammadi scrolls on a web site. The email basically says the same thing as wiki on fair use. Is wiki for educational purposes ? If so, how much copyrighted material can we include here under the fair use provision of US Copyright Law ?
- AFAIK, Wikipedia has traditionally adhered to a fairly tight standard of quoting under "fair use" guidelines, i.e., "not a lot". Maybe a few sentences - a pithy quote, or a sample to give the flavor of the material. If we can link to an online copy, since it's only a click away discretion may be the better part of scholarship at this time. Comments?
- As someone who is working on a scholarly translation of an obscure (unjustly obscure! get your copy of the Libri Carolini NOW!) text who hopes to see it published not only in a nice little book but also on the Web I can sympathize with the idea that translations should be as widely distributed as possible. But in the context of a Wiki that makes me VERY nervous. I don't want my name attached to a translation that can be edited or altered. I would want a link to an un-editable site, but in this case copyright serves accuracy as well as 'property' rights to the translation. So, my vote goes to 'quote and link to full-text' practices. --MichaelTinkler
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)