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 <jay...@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" <k...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
