View Post [edit]
Poster: | Jim Carlile | Date: | Jun 24, 2008 11:24pm |
Forum: | texts | Subject: | Re: Copyright Question |
After 1923, up to 1964, it's in the public domain unless copyright was officially renewed. All formal renewals have been listed by the Copyright Office, each year. Before 1978, the renewal process was strict and required, and had to be done the exact year the original copyright term expired.
It's amazing how many books and journals were NOT renewed when they could have been. As far as the scans, Microsoft released their claims on them, and Google admitted that they have no legal authority to restrict use of their PD full-view works in the first place.
So, go ahead and use them...they belong to the public, they came from public libraries on the most part, and Google (at least) scanned them only so that they could get access to other copyrighted but out-of-print works to possibly license some day for cash (see section 4.3 of the Google agreement with U.C. for the lowdown on this.)
Reply [edit]
Poster: | stbalbach | Date: | Jun 25, 2008 6:18am |
Forum: | texts | Subject: | Re: Copyright Question |
http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-copyright-renewal-records-available.html
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Diana Hamilton | Date: | Jun 25, 2008 7:49am |
Forum: | texts | Subject: | Re: Copyright Question |
Thanks for the link, very useful!
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Jim Carlile | Date: | Jun 30, 2008 2:38am |
Forum: | texts | Subject: | Re: Copyright Question |
Now, if only Google will use them to do copyright checks on their post 1923 scans, and then release them if they're PD! (you can never ask for too much...)
Reply [edit]
Poster: | anthonypaul | Date: | Jun 30, 2008 10:47am |
Forum: | texts | Subject: | Re: Copyright Question |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Jim Carlile | Date: | Jul 1, 2008 12:38am |
Forum: | texts | Subject: | Re: Copyright Question |
Unlike the now-gone Microsoft Live Book Search, oftentimes Google will make their clearly pre-1923 works unavailable for full-views. There's a pattern to it-- it mostly happens when they have also scanned a later, post 1923 copyrighted version of the same work. You'll see the different versions listed, but even the full PD one will say "snippet only' or something like that.
Here's where it gets kind of sinister. Their failure to make them fully viewable violates their library scanning agreements with UC and Michigan. But the UC agreement holds a key to this mysterious failure of theirs. In article 4.3 (third sentence,) they are granted the right to license later copyrighted or mixed-content works. This means they can sell at some time an old still-copyrighted book that's probably long out of print and will never be physically republished.
With this allowance in mind, two questions should be posed to them:
1) Is this why they are so insistent on fully scanning ALL copyrighted books in the libraries (they're being sued over this right now) and,
2) Is this why they won't release many competing public domain versions of the same work, because it will destroy the market for any future licensing deals?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Jim Carlile | Date: | Jul 1, 2008 2:18am |
Forum: | texts | Subject: | Re: Copyright Question |
Foreign authors are now treated differently than Americans, even if their works were also published in the U.S. American copyright law follows the law of the author's country of origin. In Britain, copyright now lasts for 70 years after an author's death. It was 50 years up until 1996, when British law was harmonized with Europe.
If the works were in the public domain in 1996, they stayed in the public domain (unless they were in copyright somewhere else in Europe, if so they went back into copyright in Britain up to 70 years.)
But, because public domain was based solely upon when the author died, those who were still alive in 1946 or later had ALL of their works STILL in copyright in 1996-- even those written long before.
There are some exceptions based upon when the works were published in the U.S. as to how long after they appeared. But in some cases, it is perfectly possible for late-19th Century works to STILL be in copyright in Britain, and thus unavailable even here.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Jim Carlile | Date: | Jul 1, 2008 2:46am |
Forum: | texts | Subject: | Re: Copyright Question |
Bertrand Russell, George Moore are great examples. Unlike the U.S., most of their works still carry a British copyright. In this country Congress exempted pre-1923 works from abiding by the harmonization, but there's a twilight zone of 1911-1923 English works that online archives still have to worry about.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | anthonypaul | Date: | Jul 1, 2008 8:52am |
Forum: | texts | Subject: | Re: Copyright Question |
I wonder if the problem is that no human eye at Google looks at matters like this and makes an informed decision.I suppose there is a mis-conceived computer program that does it automatically, based on heaven-knows-what criteria, that are just wrong in the cases.
Thanks to Internet Archive and PG which does have some of his books, and failing that charity shops and Ebay!