mentalblog.com comments:
Not that I am a legal expert, nor do I care to defend the decision of every court in America, but here is what I know from one of the sides in the Kehoth vs. Otzar case:
The court ruled against a copyright infringement on the English translation of the siddur (by Rabbi Mangel) that belongs to Kehoth. Otzar argued that since that translation was approved by the Rebbe, it become canonical for all Chabad – thus also “in the public domain” de facto. The court did not buy – correctly in my view. (As an aside: Otzar should have done their own translation, particularly since the only person that believes the Mangel translation to have received an unequivocal approval of the Rebbe is the translator himself, who convinced the naïve folks at Otzar they just had to use it).
The main point: The Hebrew text of the siddur is in the public domain. The court did not rule on a matter of religion (siddur itself - Ari or otherwise) but on matter of copyright.
don't you see the distinction? in the merkos case, the nuance and difficulty of the translation only went to the element of creativity as a prerequisite for copyright protection not the right to copy it - if the defense was raised that religious needs mandate copying (specious but hey that's what IP lawyers are for) that would be a different story
the oster case merely stands for the proposition tht religious leadership should be decided under the tenets of the group (the lawyer made a fine argument citing the violation of corporate law but the court saw through it)
sorry TA what's this world coming to?
BTW your buddy hirhurim did a piece on music downloading which he was inclined to matir - yet someone copies his blog recently and suddenly he's all machmir - whaddya make of that?
BTW - by way of background, when I'm not egging you to jump or lambasting you with my witticisms, I am a copyright attorney
shmuel monkes, try an imaginative exercise. Put yourself in my shoes and please write here why did I have a problem with my photos published on Chabad.info. I will grade your response on a scale of 1-10.
Berl, does it mean that they are free to publish the siddur without English?
I believe anyone would be – the siddur is simply too old to belong to any estate or corporation.
But in the Otzar case, I would want to double check. They did other stupid things akin to the usage of the Mangel translation (the big issue). For instance, they applied the Kehoth insignia to their siddur, arguing that Rabbi S.S. has the right to use it and “he lets”. There may be more such details I do not know about. It is all about the copyright though.
I'll let you respond to that since its your self-analysis that needs honing - not mine (go easy on yourself - give yourself a good grade)
personally, I support anyone's right to preserve the integrity of his/her work from unauthorized copying, both legally (as an IP atty) and halachically - I have no problem with your stance - it was your friend's about-face when his own "hekdesh" was "moiled" that I found amusing
BTW - did you happen to catch scotty's recent discourse on the "fair use" doctrine?
sorry, indeed
I have no beef with the look and feel of your blog - it shows thought, creativity and you - and you alone - should be the sole arniter of how it is exploited (in IP exploitation is actually a good thing!)
PS tell Berl that the unauthorized use of the Kehot insignia may very well constitute trade or service mark infringement - a close first cousin
what is moiled?
Frankly, I don't see any option they had other than using R. Mangel's translation. I have not read many original works by Otsar in English, but for the ones that I have (the commentary on the Tehillim, the instructions they added into the Siddur) atrocious is a kind word.
from the hebrew "moeyl b'hekdesh" misappropriating items consecrated to the BHM
770 bochur,
if Otzar had hired a small team of good translators to do a new translation of the siddur & had named their publishing house Otzar Menachem (with a new insignia - not Kehoth’s) - they'd still be out there. And competition is good for the consumer.
I agree with you 100%. I was just pointing out that they don't. If they did, they would have done just that with the commentary on תהילים.
Problem is that the requisite lack of klein-kepeldikeit is not something, IMHO, that they posess.
I agree with Berl. The Otsar siddur is probably what brought Kehos to publish their new "Artscrollesque" siddur. That's a good thing, and it was facilitated by healthy competition (something that Kehos doesn't have enough of, if you ask me).
However, that doesn't free Otsar from the legal obligation not to infringe on copyright laws. The law concerning the Hebrew is, as has been said, that the Hebrew is too old to be subject to copyright laws. However, the English is a different story.
For this project to be legal, it would require a new translation. However, this notion that Otsar should hire a team of translators is a little overstated: they run their "business" out of the basement of a house. As far as I know, they don't print new things anymore. That kind of idea is beyond their ability at this point.
But the point remains: Kehos could use some competition!
Not the topic of this thread, but I find the "ArtScrollesque" Siddur rather distasteful. I'm not sure how far we have to go in creating a "Tehillas Hashem for Dummies". The same goes for their having completely repaginated the Hebrew Siddur. If you want to make a Siddur with the same Nusach but a different look, do what ArtScroll and every sane person does; give it a new name.
Not that Otzar's English Siddur looks any nicer. This kind of competition can be safely left for the businessmen of Chelm.
Commenting by HaloScan
