I'd just like to strongly +1 everything Karen said. Negative determinations are useful too.
Asaf On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Karen Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > I did an analysis of copyright variables for U of California, which you > can find: > > http://www.cdlib.org/groups/rmg/ > > It was based on the same concerns of Ben's, plus the nervousness of the > institution's lawyers. It is essentially extended metadata for copyright > evidence, plus information on "who to call" for more information, which > would not be appropriate for OL. It also includes a country code since > any copyright determination is country-specific. > > However, the Internet Archive does have copyright declarations AND > evidence fields for its digitized materials, so you can view those by > following the link to the full text. I don't know if there's a > reasonable way to pull those into the OL database. > > I understand when people are nervous about recording copyright > information, but my approach at U of C was that it is a disservice to > users to not at least tell them what you *do* know about materials you > are making available. If nothing else, if you have already done a lookup > in the renewal database and found/not found anything, that should be > recorded. If you have looked at the title page and the date is before > 1923 and it is a US publication held in the US, that should be recorded. > (This is what the Archive does.) If, in the case of U of C, you are the > holder of an archive but you truly do not know what the copyright status > of an item is, THAT should be recorded so people know that they > shouldn't waste their time calling you to ask. More information for > users is better. > > At the same time, with a very few exceptions, actually determining > copyright status is a lengthy, expensive process. There is some evidence > that HathiTrust will be going through that process, and US libraries are > talking about sharing among them their determinations. These will be > conceptually in the form of: > > Harvard U says that this book, published in 1939, was never renewed and > therefore is in the public domain. They have looked here, and here (or > they have followed procedure XYZ) to determine this. > > I support making this type of information available as widely as > possible. Actual "copyright declarations" is of course what people wish > they could get, although those should be done by experts, and even those > should be accompanied by evidence, as the Archive is doing (albeit their > only determination is public domain/not public domain). > > kc > > On 1/29/13 3:56 PM, Ben Companjen wrote: > > Without wanting to bring down any ideas, I hope you will consider my > > reflections on your proposal. > > > > Summary: > > - How about focussing on "independent variables" like dates and > > origins instead of manual labelling? > > - Research should be recorded > > - Are there identifiers? > > > > > > I like the idea of being able to tell whether a work (or rather > > edition, when there are text differences between editions) is in the > > public domain - and of course we're not alone in that respect, given > > the public domain calculators [1] and guidelines for determining > > copyright status. Open Library may be a place for it. For scanned > > books, there is a copyright notice already on the Internet Archive > > detail page, albeit without (much?) provenance. > > > > But one good reason for the existence of these tools for determining > > copyright status is of course the diversity of copyright laws across > > the globe. I'm in a different jurisdiction than you (unless you're in > > the Netherlands too ;-)), so (as far as I know) different terms apply > > here even to books published in the US. The most extreme example is > > countries without copyright laws, for which any of the statuses you > > propose are, well, meaningless. And as time progresses (and the US > > definition of public domain can be changed by Congress, apparently), a > > manually assigned status will most likely change. > > > > Even though determining copyright status isn't / may never be easy, it > > may eventually be automated. Could it be more useful to focus on the > > inputs of copyright status determination (publication date, publisher, > > author death date, copyright holding organisation) and make sure these > > are recorded correctly? Research can already be recorded in a general > > text field like edition notes (without the specific designation, of > > course), but it may be useful to record it separately. Let me propose > > that the words "copyright research" be added to research in notes, to > > enable retrieving the records later with a text search. > > By the way: can the research be modelled as (a small set of) simple > > assertions, like "book has copyright notice and copyright notice says > > copyright is held by X starting 1925"? I'm thinking this may help > > letting machines do the work (in the future). > > > > Regarding external (renewal) databases: do they have identifiers that > > could be added? > > > > Some general remarks: > > - these seem serious questions, for which I don't think you would need > > to apologise :) > > - I'm afraid there is little activity on developing new features from > > IA developers... > > - ... but/and I don't know the current status or future plans > > - you're welcome to contribute to the code (or at least propose code > > changes) [2] :) > > > > Ben > > > > [1] e.g. http://wiki.okfn.org/Public_Domain_Calculators > > [2] https://github.com/internetarchive/openlibrary > > > > On 1 December 2012 19:59, Adelle Frank <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On a non-spam-related note, would it be possible to add these 2 > intellectual > >> property fields to the librarian mode on Open Library: Copyright status > & > >> Copyright evidence? > >> > >> I don't think the general public would want to see these on the basic > edits > >> page, but they would be extremely useful to those of us gathering > copyright > >> status evidence for certain 1923-63 books published in the US. > >> > >> Example options for the Copyright Status field might be: > >> > >> not yet researched (a good default for 1923+ published works in the US) > >> public domain (a good default for pre-1923 published works in the US) > >> copyright owned by organization > >> copyright owned by individual > >> orphan work > >> > >> The Copyright Evidence field would probably need to be a textarea > field. It > >> could include help text that gives an example, such as: "Physical copy > has > >> no visible notice of copyright symbol or wording and stated publication > >> information is 1907 in the USA." or "©House of the Church of the > Brethren > >> (A130150). Catalog of Copyright Entries, 1954 - Page 94. > >> http://www.archive.org/details/catalogofcopyrig381lib). However, no > evidence > >> of renewal found in Stanford or LC renewal databases." > >> > >> Apologies if I am asking for difficult things! I enjoy OpenLibrary very > much > >> and wanted to contribute a few ideas that could lead to even more > >> crowd-sourcing. > >> > >> Appreciative of your excellent work on this open access project, > >> > >> ~Adelle Frank > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ol-tech mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > >> [email protected] > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Ol-tech mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > [email protected] > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > [email protected] http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet > _______________________________________________ > Ol-tech mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > [email protected] > -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
