Ben, I can fill it a bit. First, the LC files were purchased, so those are covered by whatever contract LC uses for purchased files. (There will probably be a copy somewhere at the Archive, but I don't know any restrictions on use. We can clarify that.)
Next, take a look at the talk that Aaron gave at Code4lib 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV-P2uzzc4s which explains the use of covers from Library Thing and from Amazon. Also at c4l2008 a consortium of north-western libraries and TALIS donated their materials to OL. TALIS data is on the Open data Hub [1] with a ODC PDDL license. These are the records that were imported into OL. If you look at the full list of Open Library data [2] you will see that some include license information. Unfortunately, it will take some digging to know exactly which files were actually imported. I think this is a documentation project that we should undertake, and I'm willing to contribute what I know (or think I know). kc [1] http://datahub.io/dataset/talis-openlibrary-data [2] http://archive.org/search.php?query=collection%3Aol_data&sort=-publicdate On 3/4/13 3:50 PM, Ben Companjen wrote: > Alexis, thanks for your IA answer. > I do agree with Tom and Lee though, that the current statement of > usage responsibility is not really, err, usable. > > I wasn't there from the beginning and haven't read all logs and emails > in the archive, so I don't really know what happened then. It is clear > that there were several imports of MARC record sets, some of better > quality than others, and that a bot 'took' information from the > Library of Congress at regular intervals or semi-continuously. For > each of these sources, there must have been at least a decision to > 'take'/start taking the data and I assume something gave the > impression (or better: explicit confirmation) that that 'taking' was > allowed. > Can it be determined for these sources? Talis, sets from several > state(?) libraries, the Library of Congress, Amazon? > > Indeed, in the worst case data may need to be removed to make the > whole OL dumps/live content shareable under an Open Data licence. The > OpenStreetMap project changed their licence from CC-BY-SA to ODBl > because the latter was apparently better for sharing data(bases). The > change involved lots of discussion and agreements from each and every > user to agree to the new licence or have his/her contributions removed > on a certain date. Perhaps objects were reverted to the last edit n in > a chain of edits (1, 2, ..., n, n+1, n+2, ...) in which all > contributors agreed to the new licence. > Contributions from companies (like a map producer who provided > complete data for some countries) also had to be relicenced which > required a bit of lobbying, but didn't pose a lot of trouble. > It is important to note that the OSM community has been pretty strict > on only allowing original data or donations of data by the > rightsholder under the right licence terms. > > About the cover images: isn't there a fair use in allowing low > resolution images for book identification purposes? I believe > Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons has some rules or guidelines for using > copyrighted images. "I believe that although this image is > copyrighted, its display here is fair use, because .. no open > alternative, small enough to discourage reuse... etc." > > Ben > _______________________________________________ > Ol-discuss mailing list > Ol-discuss@archive.org > http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > ol-discuss-unsubscr...@archive.org > -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list Ol-discuss@archive.org http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to ol-discuss-unsubscr...@archive.org
