Talk:The Two Noble Kinsmen

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Information about this edition
Edition: Gutenberg says: "The text of this Project Gutenberg edition is taken from C. F. Tucker Brooke's 1908 edition of THE SHAKESPEARE APOCRYPHA."
Source: Project Gutenberg: This etext was prepared by Christopher Hapka, Sunnyvale, CA.
Contributor(s): Quadell and his trusty sidekick Polbot
Level of progress: 75%.svg75%: complete, proofread by one user, and standard.
Notes: Gutenberg notes: "Italics have been silently removed in most places, as for proper names, and replaced with ALL CAPS or bracketed text where appropriate."
Proofreaders: User:Quadell

Older discussion, for previous version[edit]

What is the online source? Cowardly Lion 23:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to complete the addition of the text, and tidy the format, but editions can vary considerably, for example, with modernization, or not, of the spelling, so I don't want to have one scene from one edition, and another from another. My searches so far have yielded the following online sources:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1542

http://william-shakespeare.classic-literature.co.uk/the-two-noble-kinsmen/

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28The%20Two%20Noble%20Kinsmen%29

http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Two-Noble-Kinsmen.html

http://www.uq.edu.au/emsah/drama/fletcher/nf/tnk/index.html

(That one says, "This text is freely available for educational, non-profit uses only. Please report any errors or suggestions to Drew Whitehead." It claims to be a facsimile in html of the original edition, in other words, no editorializing, no modernization of the spelling, so I don't see how any restrictions can be put on the copying of the text to another website. Advice from someone more experienced with copyright issues would be welcome.)

If I can't decide which version matches what has already been added, I might start from scratch. I'd personally prefer to use a version with modern spelling, as being easier to read. I like using archaic spelling for short poems, but not for a whole play. First Folio type spellings are more for scholars examining the original, not for students quoting a passage in an essay.

That brings me to another question. If the public domain original version of a seventeenth-century work uses archaic spelling, and someone copies the whole text from the Penguin edition or the Oxford edition, is there a copyright issue, since the modern, probably living, editor was the one who made changes from, say,

"hee was skilful enough to haue liu'd stil, if knowledge could be set vp against mortallitie." (see facsimile) to
"he was skilful enough to have lived still, if knowledge could be set up against mortality." ?

I wouldn't think twice about using the modern edition of a short poem, as you could argue that anyone could and would make the change from hee to he, or sodayne to sudden, or eare to ear, so the editor can't claim any special originality. But when it involves a whole play, does it become more borderline?

Finally, I think having the whole play on one page is too much, so I intend to have one act per page, with any prologues or epilogues also going on separate pages. Thoughts? Cowardly Lion 13:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having just looked at the printed version, I think that one scene per page would be better. Cowardly Lion 13:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, publishers too-frequently claim copyright on public domain works -- there's no law against doing so -- but those claims are only valid if the publisher added new "creative content". Certainly a new introduction, new footnotes, or a new translation, would all be subject to copyright. But any restrictions on public domain content (such as "free for non-commercial purposes") are non-enforceable.

Secondly, the subject of what textural changes are copyrightable and what are not is a very grey area. If an editor changed wording from "liu'd" to "lived", etc., this could be viewed a a translation, and therefore subject to copyright. Or it could be seen as a technical, non-creative rendering of obsolete spellings into modern spellings, a "sweat of the brow" rendering not subject to copyright. (See w:Feist v. Rural.) It might depend on the mood of the judge, if this were litigated. If we have access to a clearly non-copyrighted version, we should use that, and avoid the risk (although you could try asking Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer). —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 14:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Project Gutenberg has a version of "Two Noble Kinsmen" scanned from a 1908 text, and therefore free of all copyright concerns. It uses the original spelling, such as "approov'd" for "approved", etc. I could run my bot to import this, if you like. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes, please. That would be fantastic! Thanks for all your help. Cowardly Lion 16:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

layout of front page[edit]

Recent changes have altered the layout of the front page. I preferred the previous style. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of the previous style, I preferred it too. I'm changing it back, and if anyone prefers the other style, we should discuss it here. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll support you on that. It's the least I can do, after you imported the entire play at my request! (Plus, I also like it better.) Cowardly Lion 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)