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.
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.
> 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: