Slashdot Mirror


1.5 Million Pages of Ancient Manuscripts Online

New submitter LordWabbit2 sends this quote from an AP report: "The Vatican Library and Oxford University's Bodleian Library have put the first of 1.5 million pages of ancient manuscripts online. The two libraries in 2012 announced a four-year project to digitize some of the most important works of their collections of Hebrew manuscripts, Greek manuscripts and early printed books. Among the first up on the site Tuesday, are the two-volume Gutenberg bibles from each of the libraries and a beautiful 15th-century German bible, hand-colored and illustrated by woodcuts. ... The Vatican Library was founded in 1451 and is one of the most important research libraries in the world. The Bodleian is the largest university library in Britain."

51 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. Ancient msnuscripts by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Can we get Daniel Jackson to translate them?

    1. Re:Ancient msnuscripts by flyneye · · Score: 1
      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. Comic Sans by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 3, Funny

    And they're all available only in Comic Sans.

    1. Re:Comic Sans by camperdave · · Score: 1

      And they're all available only in Comic Sans.

      There is a project underway to convert the documents to Papyrus in order to make it look more olde-timey.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  3. Appalling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Absolutely no respect for copyright. If I was a descendant of the families who wrote these documents, I would be demanding compensation!

  4. Don't bother trying. by tpstigers · · Score: 2

    No amount of Slashdottery will take the awesome out of this.

    1. Re:Don't bother trying. by Decker-Mage · · Score: 2

      umm... Amen!

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  5. Re:but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    what if I do not read "ancient"?

    You can read the Greek ancient manuscripts -especially the New Testament, since it was originally written in the more simple "koini" (common) Greek form, the "lingua franca" of the time- if you can read... "modern" Greek!
    Since i am a Greek i don't know for sure if you can read the Hebrew ancient manuscripts as easy as the Greek (i guess it is).

  6. Copyright by Smauler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The images of the ancient texts are marked "Copyright Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana".

    Copyright is seriously out of control. People don't even know what it is any more.

    1. Re:Copyright by GumphMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is the logic. The image is a work carrying copyright: you cannot reproduce the image without permission or staying within fair use/fair dealing provisions of relevant laws. The words on the pages in the are a public domain work: you can quote from the book with impunity. Logical in some minds, but copyright assertions by gatekeepers has a long history of abuse.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    2. Re:Copyright by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      The few images I have seen carry a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported licence.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    3. Re:Copyright by swillden · · Score: 1

      The images of the ancient texts are marked "Copyright Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana".

      Copyright is seriously out of control. People don't even know what it is any more.

      Only the images (for the work of digitizing the manuscripts) - not the texts

      That's correct. They own copyrights on the photos, but no one owns the texts.

      Copyright is under control and works as it is supposed!

      Hold your horses there, that doesn't necessarily follow. Just because there's nothing egregiously screwy in this case doesn't mean copyright isn't pretty badly broken. It is.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Copyright by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The IMAGES are copyrighted... The images are fairly new. The text in the images not so much. But you are right, people don't even what it is anymore.

    5. Re:Copyright by Picardo85 · · Score: 1

      The way copyright works right now with Life+70 years is quite out of control too.

    6. Re:Copyright by plasticsquirrel · · Score: 2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

      If it is a straightforward photo that reproduces a 2D image such as a manuscript page that is in the public domain, then that photo is also in the public domain. I have uploaded others' photos on numerous occasions to Wikimedia Commons, which also recognizes such photos as public domain, and it has always been accepted as valid. Unfortunately many people, even museums, believe that anything and everything is under copyright, and they are uninformed about copyright as it applies to public domain works.

      --
      Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
    7. Re:Copyright by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing... if there is only one document, and it is in a private library, is it in the public domain?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Copyright by swillden · · Score: 2

      It is very badly broken. The goal of proper copyright law is to increase the flow of material into the public domain. The social contract underlying it is basically "We'll all agree to arbitrarily limit what we can do for a short period of time in order to encourage the creation and publication of works". But in what twisted universe does it encourage creation and publication to restrict copying long after the creator has died? Do you seriously believe that authors, for example, might think "Well, if copyright doesn't last at least until my great grandchildren are born, there's just no point in writing." Not to mention the egregious way it's been extended to control not just expressions but ideas (e.g. plot), and the way that Fair Use has been hammered almost out of existence.

      I stand by my statement that copyright is very badly broken. Big content owners have pushed for extensions of the duration and scope to the point that the social contract is gone. If modern copyright law were evaluated under the rules applied in contract law, it would be ruled inequitable and therefore invalid.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Copyright by swillden · · Score: 1

      I completely disagree that it was "consumers" who first broke the contract. Oh, there were always small numbers of infringements, but copyright has become so one-sided that hardly any average people even understand what the social contract is. Given that it appears to most people to be a completely one-sided grant, with no significant harm caused by infringement, why not infringe? The content owners have done it to themselves. Reduce copyright to a reasonable duration (say, 10 years for most works) so that people can see that copyright actually does end and stuff does flow into the public domain, and I argue that most people will have greatly-increased respect for it. They'll actually be in a position to think "Well, I could pirate this now, but if I wait a few years I'll be able to obtain it legally". I also think a shortened copyright term would result in an explosion of mashup-based creativity -- which big media would hate but would enrich the public tremendously.

      As for extending beyond expressions, both US copyright law and the Berne Convention see elements such as plot and characters as protectible. So if Greek courts fight that, good for them. But I'm not sure they do, because Greece is a Berne signatory.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it is a straightforward photo that reproduces a 2D image such as a manuscript page that is in the public domain, then that photo is also in the public domain.

      **IN THE US**

      Other countries disagree with the US Supreme Court's interpretation that simple mechanical effort is insufficient to introduce a new copyright claim. I don't know what copyright law in the Vatican or in the UK is with regards to that point, but neither the Vatican Library or the Bodleian Library is going to feel compelled to follow U.S. copyright law just because they posted something on the internet. (The Bridgeman v. Corel article you link actually talks about UK law, and how UK law is unclear on the copyright status of slavish copies.)

    11. Re:Copyright by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      Australian law, for example, does not require artistic merit (i.e. not a slavish copy) for a new copyright to exist in the photograph. An artistic work is defined as, "a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not." (Copyright Act 1968 Sect 10). Whether it is a slavish copy of a public domain work or not is irrelevant in determining the rights pertaining to the image of the object. Other provisions covering databases of works would also come into play under Australian law if you tried to harvest a substantial portion of the image library.

      As for Wikimedia Commons, "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (emphasis and reformat mine) Assuming there is some validity to the copyright claims over the images from the Vatican under Vatican law then you could not post them to the Commons. Similarly, "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted either", which would preclude many (all) the images created of the Bodleian's collection which carry a Creative Common Non-commercial licence.

      I am not saying Australian law applies to this specific case, just reinforcing that the United States is not the World no matter how much they assert it is. I am also not saying that Australian copyright law is not an arse.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    12. Re:Copyright by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Australian law, for example, does not require artistic merit (i.e. not a slavish copy) for a new copyright to exist in the photograph. An artistic work is defined as, "a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not."

      That's shitty... UK law requires a little artistic merit. All other European law does too AFAIK. Most of the world holds that simple reproductions do not hold copyright in themselves.

      Are telephone directories copyrighted in Australia?

    13. Re:Copyright by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Consumers were never the problem copyright was intended to deal with - rival (especially larger, more competitive) publishers were. It's been warped into a law which punishes consumers, and is not helping small publishers as much.

    14. Re:Copyright by Smauler · · Score: 1

      The images are _not_ copyrighted. They are representations, they are _not_ original works.

    15. Re:Copyright by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      Phone books, yes, maybe, no, sometimes: Goodbye to copyright for databases? Federal Court finds no copyright in phone directories. TV guides too: The High Court Decision in IceTV and Nine Network. Both cases resolved against the purported copyright holder but not as a result of unambiguous law and not setting a clear precedent either. The copyright law in this country regarding compilations (there isn't database-specific law) is such an unmitigated morass that it takes thousands of dollars just to get a worthless opinion, and millions to go to court because you will end up arguing all the way to the High Court. The big players are now lobbying for compilation specific laws, but only if the laws enshrine their "rights". For the smaller player (myself included) the legal costs of fighting for what I consider right utterly dwarf the (still) ludicrous licensing fees some parties charge for simple lists of facts; a not dissimilar situation to patent troll demand letters.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  7. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

    Parts of the collection at Alexandria were destroyed by "Christians."

    --
    "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  8. Neat! by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    We can crowdsource all the Dan Brown clues-hidden-by-the-ancients malarky and discover thousands of Holy Grails, Atlantises, Lemurias, El Dorados, Alien Saucers etc.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  9. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by swilly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Library of Alexandria caught fire several times.

    The first may have been when the Romans conquered Egypt. The Romans burned their own ships and much of the city caught fire, and the library may have been partially destroyed at this time.

    A branch of the library may have been burned with the destruction of pagan temples when the Roman Empire outlawed paganism, but nobody knows how many (if any) books were lost. The main building was apparently not affected. And by the time paganism was made illegal in the Roman Empire, a concerted effort had been made to have copies of important documents in other libraries, including the worlds largest library at Constantinople. These other libraries were not burned (though it's entirely possible that some books in them were destroyed).

    And it was finally destroyed by the Muslim army. There is a story that the Caliph ordered the burning of books stating that if they contradicted the Quran they are heretical, and if they did not then they are redundant. There are no contemporary sources for this story, so most historians doubt it. Whether or not this burning was deliberate, the destruction was complete and library was lost to history.

  10. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Nope, it was finally destoyed by god himself. The library is now under water in the harbour of Alexandria following an earth quake in the 8th century.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  11. Re:Written in polish by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    The ancients liked to keep everything shiny too.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  12. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Library of Alexandria caught fire several times.

    The first may have been when the Romans conquered Egypt. The Romans burned their own ships and much of the city caught fire, and the library may have been partially destroyed at this time.

    A branch of the library may have been burned with the destruction of pagan temples when the Roman Empire outlawed paganism, but nobody knows how many (if any) books were lost. The main building was apparently not affected. And by the time paganism was made illegal in the Roman Empire, a concerted effort had been made to have copies of important documents in other libraries, including the worlds largest library at Constantinople. These other libraries were not burned (though it's entirely possible that some books in them were destroyed).

    And it was finally destroyed by the Muslim army. There is a story that the Caliph ordered the burning of books stating that if they contradicted the Quran they are heretical, and if they did not then they are redundant. There are no contemporary sources for this story, so most historians doubt it. Whether or not this burning was deliberate, the destruction was complete and library was lost to history.

    Now now now... why must you spoil a good atheist rant with more informed and level-headed information?

  13. Oh, that's JUST great... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    That's all we need, providing everyone with still more access to ancient text.

    Two Paragraph spoiler summary if you want the CliffNotes version.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  14. Quick translation results by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmmm, if I've got this correct, the item I just read says: "Pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels—bring home for Emma."

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
  15. Re:Bibles? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    You don't think the VERY first book that was EVER printed is worth saving? No matter whether you agree with the content, the book itself is part of our history (the content has also done a ton to shape our history as well)

  16. Easier to find by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    Wish it was a bit easier to find the actual text. It would have also been cool to see the pages side by side. But still this is way cool.

  17. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Well, we lost the manual for the pyramids, anyway...

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  18. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by nhat11 · · Score: 1

    Yes and the US kill off Indian tribes, Germans created the holocaust and many other nations destroy and plundered land and people. We learn our lessoned and stop doing it in the present day. The article is about what is happening now and what they're doing with the manuscripts. That is what is important now.

  19. Re:Momentous! by phrostie · · Score: 1

    I think it's cool that there is a baseline that we can compare and see what changed, but i'd be more interested in books like Vitruvius' Ten Books on Architecture.

  20. English Translation of Mahabharata is free! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Well, that site seems to be very Judeo/Christian centric. Hope there is a similar effort to get the Hindu and Buddhist texts/manuscripts on line.

    The one and only line-by-line English translation of Mahabharata, by Ganguli, a three decade effort stretching from 1860 to 1890, is on the public domain and can be downloaded for free. Very difficult to read, extremely voluminous. But there things some mind boggling stuff there.

    For example, while describing the reign of Emperor Dushyant, it says, "In his days there were no farmers, there were no miners". Is it the folk memory of the days of hunter/gatherers/herders as remembered by later generations of farmers? Does "no miners" means it was a neolithic stone age culture? I have seen scholarly articles arguing that "the story of Cain and Abel is clearly the folk memory of the conflict between herders and farmers". But there is not much of work done on Mahabharata.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:English Translation of Mahabharata is free! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      It was vatican library? Did not realize that. Gee! I feel like a total idiot now. Thanks. Obama.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  21. Re:Missing first page... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Why would it have that? Your delusions seem interesting though.

  22. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by Insightfill · · Score: 1

    There are some reports that while it was finished in that last invasion, the library was already pretty much dead from budget cuts and infighting long before then. http://io9.com/the-great-library-at-alexandria-was-destroyed-by-budget-1442659066

    Sounds similar to some of the struggles in the US.

  23. Changes everything by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I had no idea that ancient Hebrews had document scanners.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  24. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

    The User Guide, the construction blueprints, or the Service and Maintenance guide?

  25. Missing Bible Page Found! by coinreturn · · Score: 2

    It says: "Any similarity to persons dead or alive is purely coincidental."

  26. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by kbahey · · Score: 1

    Indeed it was the Romans who destroyed it first.

    Here is an article I wrote years ago with references on really happened. The Arabs burning it may be a myth.

    Who burned the Library of Alexandria.

  27. Not all the Bodlean, one hopes by whitroth · · Score: 1

    I mean, there's one of the eight copies of that manuscript by Abdul Alhazrad there....

                      mark

  28. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by koan · · Score: 1

    User guide for a pyramid?

    Pg.1 Lie down in your sarcophagus.

    The End.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  29. Link to the Gutenberg Bible by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

    The Gutenberg Bible can be viewed here.

    The beautiful colour woodcuts in Stamp.Ross.283 can be viewed here.

  30. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

    Thats the Public General Release version. The CPUG ("Confidential Pyramid User Guide") available to paid members of the Pyramid Consortium presumably contain the chapters "Initiation of Afterlife Sequence", "Suggested Ancillary Tomb Items", "Pyramid Power Generation and Interfacing" and of course "Extraterrestrial Post-Install Customer Service".

  31. Re:In the name of "Allah" ... by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Well, which rock was the one they left the keys to the ignition under, would be under Users guide.....
    We could reverse engineer the rest.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  32. Re:Missing first page... by Loki_666 · · Score: 1

    Well, i thought it was funny.