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