On 10/26/06, Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> wrote:A digitisation of BDB may indeed be copyrighted. But I don't think that Chris has specified where he found "BDB on the web". If he found a digitised version at www.biblecentre.net or any other site which has simply posted the Logos digitisation, or any other copyrighted digitisation, this is indeed a breach of copyright. But for all I know he is using a set of page images, or a non-copyrighted digitisation such as the one offered by the Online Bible (at least, this is a free download). If he is using the latter, I'm not surprised that he is not satisfied, as it is a distorted version of BDB with theologically motivated changes.
No, it is so out of date, 100 years now, that it is out of copyright.
Take a look again at the following thread:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2005-September/026178.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2005-September/026179.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2005-September/026200.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2005-September/026201.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2005-September/026210.html
Take Jastrow's dictionary. This is out of copyright. The plates are
available on the web:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Jastrow%2C%20Marcus
But here the BDB is used in scanned/digitized form. This is different.
One may choose to ignore or to think that for their own purposes the
works are permissible, but it is clear that the respective publishers do
not think so.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.