Talk:An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary

Active discussions
Information about this edition
Edition: An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary, second edition (1905)
Source: An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary (scan available from Google Books)
Contributor(s): BRPXQZME
Level of progress: 25%.svg Just begun.
Notes: The dictionary, though Ainu–English in intention, contains generous amounts of Japanese text, all of it in kyūjitai. Many of these kyūjitai cannot be represented explicitly via UCS/Unicode, because they have been unified to the same code point as their simplified forms (e.g. this is shinjitai ; this is kyūjitai ; and the Unicode code point is one and the same). It is theoretically possible to distinguish so using IVS (Ideographic Variation Sequence) selectors, but computer support for this at the present time is lacking; it will simply be much easier to keep the normal Unicode code point and take note of the IVS to use for all instances of that character whenever such a character comes up.

Also, needless to say, this dictionary is dated and not completely accurate in all respects, if modern researchers of Ainu linguistics are to be trusted (and I gather they are). This dictionary is mostly useful in that it is in the public domain. And if you read the scans, you will find it rather apparent that the author speaks the truth when he says he didn't get to check the proofs very much on account of the publisher being in Tokyo and he in Sapporo; there are typos out the wazoo in this edition!

The third edition was published in 1926 and the fourth in 1938 (this final edition had a second printing in 1981, a third in 1995, and a fourth in 2007, all four printings from the same publisher Iwanami Shoten). Under copyright law in Japan (where all editions of the book were published, apparently) the fourth edition should have entered the public domain 50 years after the author's death plus 3,794 days (this wartime extension to copyright might apply because the author was English, although the book seems to have only been published in Japan). The author passed away in 1944, meaning that in Japan, the copyright expired at one of two times: in 2004 or 2005 (assuming the extension applies), or 1994 or 1995 (assuming the extension does not). Unless it can be proven that the extension does not apply, the third and fourth editions should be assumed to be under copyright (until 95 five years after their respective publication dates, in accordance with present U.S. copyright law).

Proofreaders:


UntitledEdit

Consider use of something like {{sic}} or {{SIC}}. While they are a poor substitute, they may enable you to identify where there is variation from the standard in the input text, even though there will be no difference identified on what is viewed at this point. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I suppose it would be a little misleading sic template straight-up, some sort of hover-text is probably the least intrusive approach to take. Thanks for pointing me to it! -BRPXQZME (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright statusEdit

Err, I don't understand your discussion of the copyright status in the note. Everything published before 1923 anywhere is in the public domain in the US. Works first published by US authors or in the US had to be properly renewed, but by the w:URAA, if it was first published in Japan, it would have to be out of copyright in Japan in 1996 for copyright to not have been restored no matter what its previous status in the US. If you're working from a 1905 text, then there's no question; it's in the PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The fourth edition is significantly different compared to the second (and very, very much improved, with spelling/grammar corrections all over and a few more decades’ worth of research). The second edition is from 1905, about which there is no copyright question. The third is from 1926 and the fourth is from 1938, and both fall into the post-1923 era. It would be preferable to use the fourth edition, if at all possible. It seems to be public domain (and is definitely PD in Japan by Japan’s rules), but needs checking for the U.S.; it seems to miss the URAA cutoff, for one thing (due to that whole WWII business). The way I understand it, if it were never ever registered under copyright in the U.S., this should not be a problem, and my personal search seems to verify this. But since the situation is a bit complicated, there needs to be something more in-depth to certify the fourth edition as PD in the U.S. (for WS's purposes).
Also important to note is that the second and third printings of the fourth edition include a 1981 treatise which, while a good caveat for modern readers about the accuracy of the work, is still copyrighted (as the author of that, Tamura Suzuko, is alive and well, lord willing and the creeks don't rise); I have access to scans of the 1938 first printing minus the title page and printing information (stored in Japan, where they are known to be in the public domain), so that won't be the real issue. -BRPXQZME (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The whole point of the URAA is that it restores the copyright of books that were never registered.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
...that's exactly the problem! If it weren't for that, there wouldn't even be a question. It’s currently PD in Japan.
The reason it might come up is that Batchelor was a resident of Japan until he was forced to leave, because he was a UK subject (Japan did not really provide for naturalization until after the war, to my knowledge). The relevant problem that URAA might pose with this work is that the fourth edition might be a clear-cut Template:PD/1996-and-be-done-with-it, but it might not (and this is making the big—albeit safe—assumption that the work was never published in the U.S. and never under copyright in the U.S.; just because I cannot find any references to such a publishing online, however, does not mean that I’m competent enough in these matters to say for certain that it never happened). There is no unambiguous case making the final edition of this book public domain; the situation is unusual enough that it isn’t covered in Help:Public domain (and why would it be?). It probably is, but I suspect there’s a reason there’s no PD template for “public domain because I’m too stupid prove it isn’t”!
The author produced a lot of significant materials about the Ainu, most of which falls clearly into the public domain. He lived into that time where copyright status can get iffy, however, and the fourth edition of this book being one of those things, it would be worthwhile to investigate whether (and/or until when) the copyrights of this author (are going to) hold. In Japan itself, they do not, because he died more than 60.3 years ago. The positive news for us is that there are no registrations in the online LOC catalog of this John Batchelor whatsoever. There probably aren’t any at all prior to 1978, but I have not yet made super-duper sure.
I either need to invest a lot more time looking into the matter (more time than I currently have on my hands, at any rate), or someone else who can do the research and tell me for certain whether it is or isn’t covered in the U.S. I’m around to answer any linguistic issues, if anyone would like to do the research themselves, but for now I’m sticking to the second edition because it’s very clearly PD (and shares enough common material that it would accelerate any effort to digitize the fourth edition). -BRPXQZME (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The book was never renewed in the United States, and I think it reasonable to assume that it wasn't printed in the US within 30 days of first publication. As per the URAA, that's all we need to worry about on the US side. The question is, on January 1st, 1996, was it in the public domain in Japan? If we can't prove that it was, then we can't use it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It can be argued, but it is not something I can personally prove. -BRPXQZME (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Not authoritative (as it's an English translation, rather than the actual law), but CRIC (Copyright Research and Information Center) suggests that both revisions would, in fact, be covered by the extension, as it applied to those copyrights held by Allied foreign nationals as well as those registered in foreign countries. I guess we have to wait another 13 years for the third edition. --Pipian (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It’s a relatively accurate translation, unfortunately.... I’m a bit more optimistic and hoping that they just revise the @#$% law into something more reasonable before then, but at any rate, there’s currently nothing to stop a Japan-only project from starting (well, besides that effort to extend copyright to 70 years post-mortem).
And HEY WAIT A MINUTE I INTERNET-KNOW YOU FROM SOMEWHERE. But I digress ._.;; -BRPXQZME (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikilivres is the standard backup for books that are public domain in life+50 countries like Canada but not in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Return to "An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary" page.