[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Darnton on the Google settlement
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement
- From: "Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:15:47 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
David: If I may say so, that's a rather flippant comment, coming from a former publisher! Google only has to determine the date of publication, which is after all written in the prelims of the book - it's my understanding that they are using a standard cutoff date - to determine whether or not the title is out of copyright The publisher, on the other hand, has to determine who currently holds the copyright: has it reverted to the author; if the author has died, who is the current holder... Sally Morris Email: sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 02 February 2009 23:01 To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Subject: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement I find it amusing that Google is expected to determine the copyright status of millions of titles before they can be digitised, but it is apparently unreasonable to expect publishers to determine the copyright status of the titles they publish themselves! David Prosser SPARC
- Prev by Date: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement
- Next by Date: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement
- Previous by thread: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement
- Next by thread: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement
- Index(es):