Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

[rhr]

For those who can’t find the documents in archive.org, here they are.

Click on the links in the column at the left to see the individual catalogues.

 

Waterman’s
https://archive.org/details/WatermanFountainPenCatalogs

Parker
https://archive.org/details/ParkerPenServiceManuals

https://archive.org/details/ParkerPensCatalog1923

https://archive.org/details/ParkerVacumaticPensCatalogs

Edited August 10, 2014 by rhr

[Vintagepens]

This is a complex issue, on many levels.

Might I suggest that the following would be a bit clearer if slightly reworded?

 

 

The confusion often comes from the assumption that copyright is the default status of works. The opposite is true: public domain is the default, and copyright is only granted when triggered by specific things.

 

In the case of these documents, published between 1923 and 1977, there is a requirement to place a copyright statement somewhere in the text.

 

Since the current law is that copyright is the default, it would be less confusing to state, "public domain *was* the default", and, "there *was* a requirement to place a copyright statement".

 

Incidentally, if you look at older pen catalogs and ads, many do have copyright notices attached. They are typically pretty small, so when the copy is bad (or cropped, or incomplete, as many are), they may not be visible.

[Roger W.]

A lot has been made of the ethical and legal aspects but, it is simple people. If the PCA had not made the effort to digitize catalogs they would not be out there - period!

 

Roger W.

[Vintagepens]

I can only agree with that sentiment, Roger.

Perhaps the most objectionable thing about the posting of the PCA scans to the Internet Archive was that they were posted without credit. At the very least, the PCA should have been listed as the source, acknowledging the work done to locate and scan these references.

[D Armstrong]

It really ought to be pointed out that these files have not yet been positively identified as coming form the PCA library, except anecdotally. There are no library stamps on them, and no metadata on the PDFs which, to my mind, is a pretty basic thing for any library to do, even one run by volunteers.

 

Additionally, even if one does assume that these are from the PCA library originally, without any identifiers they may have passed through several hands before arriving at archive.org. The assumption of malevolent, or even arrogant, intent is a pretty bleak commentary, without any actual evidence.

[Parker51]

If the scans did come from the PCA, there was a solution to the problem, a limited use agreement could have been required back in the days when they were photocopied, and once they were placed on line to access the Library a simple wall which required agreeing to the terms of said limited use agreement could have been put in place. Then the question would be clear, did someone violate the limited use agreement, and if so what recourse the PCA would have. Since this was not the case, it appears that the PCA has no recourse.

[kirchh]

It really ought to be pointed out that these files have not yet been positively identified as coming form the PCA library, except anecdotally.

 

They have been positively identified as being the same documents held in the PCA Library. A simple examination proves this, and I do not believe there has been any challenge to this claim, so it is fair to say it is a settled question.

 

 

There are no library stamps on them, and no metadata on the PDFs which, to my mind, is a pretty basic thing for any library to do, even one run by volunteers.

 

There are identifying notes on some of the documents in the PCA Library, but you're right, it would make sense to add additional information to avoid the sort of thing that has happened here, where you were unaware that the PCA was the party deserving of praise for putting in the effort to digitize and make available this trove of documents.

 

Additionally, even if one does assume that these are from the PCA library originally, without any identifiers they may have passed through several hands before arriving at archive.org. The assumption of malevolent, or even arrogant, intent is a pretty bleak commentary, without any actual evidence.

 

As noted, the documents are the same as the ones in the PCA Library. But you are correct -- there may be more than one individual involved in distributing them without proper credit, which is a shame.

 

I would suggest that, if you don't want to go back and change your post here to keep the flow of the thread intact, you might nonetheless consider changing your blog post so that readers there understand that your thanks is rightly directed at the volunteers who donated materials and spent hours digitizing them for the PCA. Also, the note at the bottom says, "it has come to our attention that some of the documents listed above may have come from the online library of the Pen Collectors of America," but "some" and "may have" are misleading qualifiers, as all of the documents to which you link are identical to those at the PCA. It would be more precise to simply say, "it has come to our attention that all of the documents listed above came from the online library of the PCA." No need to hedge on this point.

 

Thanks again for highlighting the value of these documents and their availability at the PCA and for giving much-deserved praise to the donors and the PCA (those "generous souls" to whom you refer) for providing access to them for pen collectors.

 

--Daniel

Edited August 18, 2014 by kirchh

[Jerry Adair]

Dan

Excellent, excellent post. This purloining of PCA documents is reprehensible. Hundreds of hours of scanning by volunteers has been wasted and the absence of metadata has no bearing on the theft. These folks were not librarians, how would they know that they needed to provide metadata? I happen to be pretty knowledgeable about electric motors and controls (3 patents and 1 pending and more than 40 years in engineering and sales) but I know nothing about metadata and how to use it. I think if anyone has posted these documents or a link to these documents should do the honorable thing and take the link and/or documents down.

[Cepasaccus]

Attempting to gain rights on public domain work is not honorable. It doesn't matter if it is an ebay seller attaching a copyright notice to public domain books or if it is the PCA. It is honorable to distribute public domain work, may it be the Gutenberg bible, Shakespear's works or public domain fountain pen catalogs.

 

And btw. in the Waterman's catalog of 1933 is a copyright notice.

[kirchh]

Attempting to gain rights on public domain work is not honorable.

 

To clarify, I think what you mean is that attempting to obtain a copyright on a public domain work is not honorable (nor is it, in fact, possible). The same applies to an exact reproduction of such a work. One cannot obtain the copyright for "Macbeth," nor can one simply scan a 19th-century edition of that work and obtain copyright protection for that copy.

 

 

It doesn't matter if it is an ebay seller attaching a copyright notice to public domain books or if it is the PCA.

 

Again, to clarify, it wouldn't matter if it were an eBay seller claiming a copyright on, say, a Parker catalog, or if it were the PCA claiming they owned the copyright on a Parker catalog (or on a faithful reproduction thereof). Of course, people and organizations are free to enter into agreements with interested parties for the viewing of public domain documents; those agreements can contain terms and restrictions, including fees for access and constraints on reproduction or dissemination. The ability of a holder of materials to make viewing conditional on the acceptance of such terms provides an incentive for the investment in money and time for the procuring, organizing, reproduction, storage, and distribution of such items, and that can be beneficial.

 

It is honorable to distribute public domain work, may it be the Gutenberg bible, Shakespear's works or public domain fountain pen catalogs.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "honorable" here. Do you mean it is an obligation for the possessor of any public domain work to distribute it without compensation and with no restrictions? The PCA distributes public domain works; do you consider them dishonorable for making the viewing of such works a benefit of membership in that organization?

 

Are such businesses as Newspapers.com and Ancestry.com dishonorable because they are not giving away the millions of pages of public domain documents they hold and in which they have a considerable investment?

 

--Daniel

[Jerry Adair]

Dan

I think it is ESL

Jerry

[Cepasaccus]

To clarify, I think what you mean is that attempting to obtain a copyright on a public domain work is not honorable (nor is it, in fact, possible).

To clarify my words, the society grants creative entities a protection (copyright) for some time, so that their work can benefit them. After this period the work should benefit the society (public domain). Because the law prevents (hopefully) people to get a Copyright on Public Domain work people are trying to get control over Public Domain work with rules and other paragraphs. As this is against the intention of Copyright and Public Domain this is not honorable even so there might be now enough paragraphs and interpretations which make this legal.

[kirchh]

To clarify my words, the society grants creative entities a protection (copyright) for some time, so that their work can benefit them. After this period the work should benefit the society (public domain). Because the law prevents (hopefully) people to get a Copyright on Public Domain work people are trying to get control over Public Domain work with rules and other paragraphs. As this is against the intention of Copyright and Public Domain this is not honorable even so there might be now enough paragraphs and interpretations which make this legal.

 

Not quite. During the period of protection, only the owner of the copyright may benefit (or control the benefit). After the period expires (or for items that had no protection), anyone may benefit. Therefore, an organization such as the PCA may benefit from public domain documents, as can any other non-profit organization, as can a for-profit company (such as Newspapers.com), as can any individual.

 

Note that you make an incorrect claim when you assert that "people are trying to get control over Public Domain work with rules and other paragraphs," if you are referring to the situation with the PCA's copies of certain documents. You are confusing the work with a particular copy of the work, which are very different things. The PCA is not trying to get control over any public domain work. They are desirous of having control over particular copies of public domain works that they have obtained or created.

 

I cannot try to get control over "Macbeth." I can make a copy of a public domain printing of "Macbeth," and then I can decide to let people see it only if they agree to certain terms. But I cannot control "Macbeth," nor can I even control the particular edition I copied.

 

Do you see the difference?

 

If you believe that it should not be legal for anyone to have any control over any copy of a public domain work, many such works would simply be inaccessible, practically speaking. And that would be very sad for many elements of the public, such as researchers who are grateful for such companies as Ancestry.com and Newspapers.com.

 

--Daniel