[Wikimedia-l] Copyright information not digitised?

[Eddie Erhart]

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 at 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 at bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > According to:
> >
> >
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-worse-than-it-seems.shtml
> >
> > 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>