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(a)gmail.com> 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(a)bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
According to:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-cent…
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l