I agree with Ray. I'm not uncomfortable with using this as a source.
However, it would also be nice to drop them a note asking permission, and pointing out to them (kindly, in a friendly manner, of course!) the tenuousness of their copyright claim. If they want to make a stink about it, this will give them the opportunity to do so now, before we've used much of this material. If they don't care, then possibly we'll get an email from them saying that it's fine anyway, thus eliminating any worries.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I've looked at the site which Fred referenced, and it includes the following: "Knight chose the 1913 15-volume set because the later editions are still under copyright protection." Clearly Knight was aware of the copyright issues when he was making his effort. Copyright depends on contributing some measure of original work. Leaving scanning bugs or even intentional bugs to trick the unwary is not original work, nor is cleaning them up.
The frames and other environment written and supplied by New Advent are of course copyrightable, Simply putting a blanket copyright notice on something means to me nothing more than "Copyright to the extent that it can be copyright". No person uploading such a page can be reasonably expected to detail which parts of a page are copyright and which are not. For the reader, he has to use his own common sense in making his determination.
Eclecticology
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l