Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 4.258 January 3, 1995 1) Introduction (Marvin Fields) 2) Quoting Mendele (Alice Faber) 3) Quoting Mendele (Stanley Werbow) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 18:06:57 -0800 (PST) From: mfields@netcom.com Subject: Introduction I have been a subscriber to mendele for aproximately two months and am finally getting around to writing an intro for myself. In view of the discussions of the past two months, I thought I better write in English :-). I'm a baby-boomer who lives in California. Like many of the others whose introductions I read I recall fondly of my bubbe talking to me in Yiddish as a young child. I feel a real connection to the language and would like to improve my capabilities for reading, understanding and writing Yiddish. I also have a goal to be able to read the Yiddish authors in the original. I am particularlly interested in Isaac Singer's work and would be greatful if anyone could tell me where I could acquire any of his work in the original Yiddish, especially the short stories. A shenem dank. Marvin Fields 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 14:23:15 -0500 From: faber@haskins.yale.edu Subject: Quoting Mendele Zellig Bach raises an important issue with regard to who owns the rights to Mendele postings. First off, I am _not_ a lawyer, and I am basing my comments on common sense and a similar discussion on the Linguist List some years back (which I am accessing from memory). That said, my understanding of copyright law is that personal letters remain the property of the sender. This is true of paper, sent via the US Postal Service. I don't know whether it would be true also of a personal email message, say, from me to Zellig. Within Mendele, our custom clearly is that if Zellig wants to cite such a personal message in one of his postings he will ask my permission, and indicate this in his posting. Now a message to Mendele is qualitatively different from a personal email message, but is it qualitatively different in a legally relevant way? If so, it may have been legally unobjectionable for the writer of the Forvarts series to quote Zellig's postings with attribution but without prior permission. (I think we can all agree that failing to attribute the material to Zellig would have been highly objectionable, if not actionable--remember, I'm not a lawyer). I can only say what I would do. If I wanted to share a Mendele posting with a friend, I wouldn't ask anyone. If, on the other hand, I wanted to cite an observation made on Mendele, I would check with the person who posted it. For one thing, it might be an off-the-cuff linguistic analysis that, upon more reflection, the poster might decide was half-baked. I wouldn't want to criticize such an analysis without checking whether they would want to stand by it! Another point is that there are people "lurking" on this and other lists we don't know about. The only way we can prevent one of these lurkers from making use of our postings in a way we don't approve of is not to post. And that would be a shande. Alice Faber 3)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 16:24:59 -0600 From: s.werbow@mail.utexas.edu Subject: Quoting Mendele >From: Larry W Peterson > > Some Thoughts on E-Mail and Copyright > >Since it remains for the courts to determine exactly how e-mail >transmissions fit copyright laws, I asked a lawyer to provide some >information that may prove useful in the interim. What follows are his >thoughts that he considers helpful: > >1. If you wish to protect by copyright information you transmit via >e-mail, you should include the word "copyright" and the date of >trasmission on it. This will put others on notice that the information is >protected (at least in the mind of the author). > >2. Also, for the record it may help to keep a printed copy of the message >since the law clearly protects any tangible medium of expression from >which it can be perceived either directly or with the aid of some >instrument for more than a "transitory duration." paragraph of item 4 below. This aspect is probably open to interpretation >at the moment.> According to federal law, "In order for an original work >of authorship to be entitled to copyright protection, it must be fixed in >any TANGIBLE MEDIUM OF EXPRESSION, NOW KNOWN OR LATER DEVELOPED, caps mine> from which it can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise >communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. A >work is 'fixed' in any tangible medium of expression when its embodiment >is sufficently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, >REPRODUCED, or otherwise communicated for a period of more >than transitory duration. The purpose of this broad definition was to >overrule the former doctrine that copies, in order to be entitled to >copyright protection, must be visually perceptible, that is, capable of >being seen and understood by the naked eye." Observation: Under the >Copyright Act of 1976, it makes no difference what the form, manner or >medium of fixation may be, whether it is in words, numbers, notes, sounds, >pictures, or any other graphic or symbolic indicia, whether embodied in a >physical object in written, printed, photographic sculptural, punched, >magnetic, or any other stable form, and whether it is capable of >perception directly or by means of any machine or device now known or >later developed. > >3. To be suitable for copyright protection a work must be original in the >sense that it is created by the author's own skill and judgment. > >4. Under the Copyright Act of 1976, fixation has replaced "publication" >as the trigger mechanism which begins statutory protection. Thus, an >unfixed work of authorship, such as an improvisation or an unrecorded >choreographic work, performance or broadcast, is not eligible for federal >copyright until "fixed." In view of the definition of "fixation", >statutory protection is not afforded to purely evanescent or transient >reproductions such as those projected briefly on the screen, shown >electronically on a television or cathode-ray tube, or captured >momentarily IN THE MEMORY OF A COMPUTER. But the images in >an audiovisual game have been held to be "fixed" in view of the fact that >the new images generated or created by the video game each time it is >played are identical or substantially identical to the earlier ones. > >A special provision is included in the statute in order to protect live >broadcasts that are transmitted to the public in unfixed form, such as >news coverage, sporting events or other live performances. The statutory >provision states that a work consisting of sound, images, or both that are >being transmitted is "fixed" IF A FIXATION OF THE WORK IS BEING MADE >SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ITS TRANSMISSION. Therefore, if a live >radio or television broadcast is simultaneously recorded (taped), it is >"fixed" and the statute protects such live broadcasts. suggestion in item 2, at the beginning.> > >I hope the above information sheds some light on concerns about copyright >and its application to e-mail transmissions. Stanley Werbow ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 4.258 Mendele has 2 rules: 1. Provide a meaningful Subject: line 2. Sign your article (full name please) A Table of Contents is now available via anonymous ftp, along with weekly updates. Anonymous ftp archives available on: ftp.mendele.trincoll.edu in the directory pub/mendele/files Archives available via gopher on: gopher.cic.net Send articles to: mendele@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu Send change-of-status messages to: listserv@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu a. For a temporary stop: set mendele nomail b. To resume delivery: set mendele mail c. To subscribe: sub mendele first_name last_name d. To unsubscribe kholile: unsub mendele Other business: nmiller@mail.trincoll.edu