Personally, I interpret the ProQuest, JSTOR, Lexis Nexis, and similar databases which contain lots of material published pre-1923 (or otherwise public domain, i.e. the text of U.S. statutes) in two ways:

1. The material probably isn't copyrighted. Though Bridgeman v. Corel was just about 2-D artwork, I don't see why the same rationality wouldn't apply here. Copyright, in the U.S. anyway, is not a reward for putting in effort, it is a pact in exchange for creative activity. Scanning a 2-D newspaper page is not a creative activity. If the materials are in the public domain, simple reproduction of them (however costly) does not create a proprietary copyright (see the Westlaw cases as well, which I think are mentioned in the [[Westlaw]] article).

2. While you're probably not violating intellectual property law in taking public domain images from their database, you probably are violating their terms of service, which is probably grounds to block you from their database or revoke your library privileges or something that. So do it at your own risk. I doubt they would care very much unless you were systematically removing articles from them and creating your own service.

(Just as an aside, JSTOR is a great source for hi-res, public domain images of scientists and science experiment results. I was able to get a huge cache of pictures of and relating to Einstein in this way, which are now on Commons. ProQuest's image quality is very bad since they scanned them in from microfilm, which makes them worse than a photocopy of a photocopy.)

Also, re: Sonny Bono: as I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong), it didn't put anything which WAS in the public domain into the private domain, it just made it so that things which were SUPPOSED to enter into the public domain did NOT. Which is very sad, but at least it doesn't open anyone up for litigation.

FF

On 9/11/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:

I frequently make use of an online database, made available to me at no cost by my local public library system, which contains not merely the full text but the actual page images of The New York Times back to 1857.

Obviously there's no problem with short quotes from the text, but what about images prior to 1923?

EVERY piece of material downloaded from this database, back to 1857, contains a notice like this:

"Display Ad 7--No Title. New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 30, 1888; [database name] Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851

• 2001. pg. 8. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission."

I'd syllogize that a) everything published before 1923 is in the public domain, and b) everything that appears in The New York Times has been publisheded, ergo c) this is in the public domain, and that the notice is just boilerplate, presumably put on everything because it is easier and less risky to put it on everything than to attempt to determine which things are under copyright (after all, a few more Sonny Bono laws and this may BE copyrighted again), and that I can safely ignore it, that I use the image freely, and that no permission is required.

Comments?

-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l