Hi Code4Lib.
Back in January I posted a brief message about a next-gen ILS project we are
calling the Open Library Project. Thanks to generous support of the Andrew
W. Mellon foundation the project received funding. Support is also being
provided by a strong list of partners. The press release
Hey code4lib folks,
Access 2008 is in Hamilton, Ontario in October of 2008 (
http://access2008.mcmaster.ca) and oh boy are we excited. Do you have an
idea for Access's Hackfest? Please send it to me at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Thanks much!
jf
--
http://libgrunt.blogspot.com --
After releasing all our series, award prizes and such, we've now
released all our covers. See the blog:
http://www.librarything.com/blog/2008/08/million-free-covers-from-librarything.php
I really hope this—or more probably what comes of this—ends the
selling of covers to libraries. Data companies
This is awesome Tim, thanks very much.
My software these days investigates several sources of covers, and then
decides based on availabilty which to use. If I wanted to check LT for a
cover before deciding to display it, would I just access that kind of
URL and see if I get a 404 or not?
Jon
Hmm, but wait, one more question:
"Use does not involve or promote a LibraryThing competitor."
Can you clarify that a bit for us? Does that mean I can't have a link
on a page to a business you consider a competitor? (Does that include
Amazon?). Can you be a bit more specific about what busin
Tri-Co Web DeveloperAD.doc
Description: Binary data
Tim Spalding wrote:
> I really hope this—or more probably what comes of this—ends the
> selling of covers to libraries.
Probably not, with all the restrictions you attached.
Still, this is a most interesting experiment. Commercial sellers
supposedly have a legal backing from contracts with pu
Both the law and the real world situation is unclear.
Clearly, publishers own the intellectual property of a cover graphic.
Could using thumbnail images of lots of covers in aggregate be
considered fair use? Maybe, the law is not clear (there is some case
law to suggest it could be, but it's
OHIONET, a not-for-profit library membership organization in Ohio,
seeks a web developer with 3 to 5 years of experience to develop,
maintain and support various aspects of OHIONET's public and internal
web sites and to coordinate web hosting and design and development
services provided to our memb
contributory infringement:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=268
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Both the law and the real world situation is unclear.
Clearly, publishers own the intellectual property of a cover graphic.
Could using thumbnail images of lots of covers in
First, IANAL, obviously.
> Clearly, publishers own the intellectual property of a cover graphic. Could
> using thumbnail images of lots of covers in aggregate be considered fair
> use? Maybe, the law is not clear (there is some case law to suggest it
> could be, but it's hardly settled).
Publish
I am actually pretty certain that Amazon _has_ licensed their covers,
and particularly from Syndetics.
Where Syndetics gets their covers remains a mystery to me, one I am very
curious about.
Jonathan
Tim Spalding wrote:
First, IANAL, obviously.
Clearly, publishers own the intellectual
On 08/07/2008 04:04 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I am actually pretty certain that Amazon _has_ licensed their covers,
and particularly from Syndetics.
Contrariwise, Wikipedia includes book and DVD covers and movie posters,
with a pretty verbose explanation of why they think they're allowed
> Publishers make their covers available to them and to others because
> they desperately want their covers out there. You can get covers from
> publishers with amazing ease. I do not suspect Amazon or Syndetics
> have licensed the covers in any way.
Having worked for a number of years for a child
I think the lawsuit you are talking about is the image linking suit, Perfect
10 v. Google. Information on this lawsuit can be found at:
http://www.eff.org/cases/perfect-10-v-google
I haven't read the decision, but the EFF says "While it leaves some
questions open, the bottom line is that the Court
Yeah, the law is pretty unclear.
I don't think LT or Wikipedia are taking an unreasonable risk. Odds are,
the publishers aren't going to complain. If they do, and you are willing
to go to court, it's a toss up as to whether you'd win or not.
Jonathan
Thomas Dowling wrote:
On 08/07/2008 04:0
David Pattern wrote:
On the subject of copyright, wasn't there a recent case brought against
Google's Image Search where the judge ruled that thumbnails do not violate the
copyright of the original image?
Yes, but the facts in that case weren't quite the same as the facts in
the hypothetic
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Tim Spalding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After releasing all our series, award prizes and such, we've now
> released all our covers. See the blog:
>
> http://www.librarything.com/blog/2008/08/million-free-covers-from-librarything.php
>
> I really hope this—or more
The thumbnail decision is quite a different one. Photographers sell
photographs, and were upset that Google was making small versions
available. But publishers do not sell covers; they sell books.
The thumbnail rationale, though apparently legally sufficient, is
complex. Showing a cover of a book
19 matches
Mail list logo
