headers
Kim Bruning | 23 Jun 2012 21:55
Picon
Picon

Copyright information not digitised?


According to:
	http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-worse-than-it-seems.shtml

a lot of books have an uncertain copyright status, because the Copyright Office records have not been
digitized yet.

Is this true? Would offering to help digitize these records fit in our mission
(especially wrt WikiSource) ?

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kim Bruning | 23 Jun 2012 21:58
Picon
Picon

Re: Copyright information not digitised?

> According to:
> 	http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-worse-than-it-seems.shtml
> 
> a lot of books have an uncertain copyright status, because the Copyright Office records have not been
> digitized yet.
> 
> Is this true? Would offering to help digitize these records fit in our mission
> (especially wrt WikiSource) ?

Hmmm, 
	http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/09045818223/public-domain-starves-while-copyright-office-struggles-to-modernize.shtml

	http://blogs.loc.gov/copyrightdigitization/2012/03/a-virtual-copyright-card-catalog-tell-us-what-you-think/

Apparantly this is current, recent, and crowd-sourcing would help.
OCR/Correcting a card catalogue is not very sexy though. <scratches
head>

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Federico Leva (Nemo | 23 Jun 2012 23:07
Picon

Re: Copyright information not digitised?

Kim Bruning, 23/06/2012 21:55:
> According to:
> 	http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-worse-than-it-seems.shtml
>
> a lot of books have an uncertain copyright status, because the Copyright Office records have not been
> digitized yet.

This seems just a tiny part of the problem of uncertain copyright status...

>
> Is this true? Would offering to help digitize these records fit in our mission
> (especially wrt WikiSource) ?

Surely not. On the other hand, it's comparable to the orphan works issue 
(you can't be forced to an unlimited effort/expense just to determine 
whether someone can ask you something), which is worth working on. 
Aren't ALA and so on active on this front, as their European equivalents 
are for the orphan works problem?

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Permalink | Reply |
headers
John Vandenberg | 24 Jun 2012 03:07
Picon

Re: Copyright information not digitised?

There are scans of most of the relevant records, and the records for books
are also transcribed by Project Gutenberg and searchable at a stanford uni
website. See en.ws template PD-US-no-renewal. The scans need to be
transcribed to increase accessibility.
On Jun 24, 2012 3:50 AM, "Kim Bruning" <kim@...> wrote:

>
>
> According to:
>
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-worse-than-it-seems.shtml
>
> a lot of books have an uncertain copyright status, because the Copyright
> Office records have not been
> digitized yet.
>
> Is this true? Would offering to help digitize these records fit in our
> mission
> (especially wrt WikiSource) ?
>
> sincerely,
>        Kim Bruning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Eddie Erhart | 24 Jun 2012 08:22
Picon

Re: Copyright information not digitised?

Whoa, in 1958/59, only *seven *percent of the books and *eleven *percent of
the journals were renewed? This may be obvious, but clarifying the
copyright status of these works would be a huge benefit to editors looking
for public domain image to illustrate Wikipedia articles... and that's not
including the benefits to the Commons and Wikisource.

--Ed

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@...> wrote:

> There are scans of most of the relevant records, and the records for books
> are also transcribed by Project Gutenberg and searchable at a stanford uni
> website. See en.ws template PD-US-no-renewal. The scans need to be
> transcribed to increase accessibility.
> On Jun 24, 2012 3:50 AM, "Kim Bruning" <kim@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > According to:
> >
> >
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-worse-than-it-seems.shtml
> >
> > a lot of books have an uncertain copyright status, because the Copyright
> > Office records have not been
> > digitized yet.
> >
> > Is this true? Would offering to help digitize these records fit in our
> > mission
> > (especially wrt WikiSource) ?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mark | 24 Jun 2012 11:15

Re: Copyright information not digitised?

While I'm also interested in looking into this, for *images* in 
particular I think it's quite difficult. They're often used in books and 
journals by permission of the photographer, so the fact that the 
book/journal's copyright wasn't renewed doesn't necessarily mean the 
photographs in the book/journal are now public domain. You'd also have 
to check that the photographer didn't separately register/renew a 
copyright on the photo. And, since photos don't typically have 
convenient names or IDs to use for lookup, it can be pretty hard to check.

-Mark

On 6/24/12 8:22 AM, Eddie Erhart wrote:
> Whoa, in 1958/59, only *seven *percent of the books and *eleven *percent of
> the journals were renewed? This may be obvious, but clarifying the
> copyright status of these works would be a huge benefit to editors looking
> for public domain image to illustrate Wikipedia articles... and that's not
> including the benefits to the Commons and Wikisource.
>
> --Ed
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@...> wrote:
>
>> There are scans of most of the relevant records, and the records for books
>> are also transcribed by Project Gutenberg and searchable at a stanford uni
>> website. See en.ws template PD-US-no-renewal. The scans need to be
>> transcribed to increase accessibility.
>> On Jun 24, 2012 3:50 AM, "Kim Bruning" <kim@...> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> According to:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane