[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Hathi Orphans
- To: "liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: Hathi Orphans
- From: Liz Mengel <emengel@jhu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:22:07 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
What makes me wonder is, if the Authors Guild can find owners of orphan works so fast why they don't try to collaborate with these types of ventures instead of suing them? Liz Mengel Associate Director Scholarly Resources and Special Collections The Sheridan Libraries Johns Hopkins University -----Original Message----- From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:16 PM To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Subject: Re: Hathi Orphans What this article makes me wonder is, did the HathiTrust ever consider asking a publisher, like the University of Michigan Press, about the procedures it follows for determining whether a copyright work is an orphan or not? This is a problem publishers have long been accustomed to grappling with, and they have worked out good procedures for resolving the question. Libraries have not had much reason in the past to worry about the orphan status of works in their collections, I assume, so this is a new challenge for them. My guess is that a publisher would not have made the same kinds of mistakes that HathiTrust evidently made with some of its determinations, as embarrassingly revealed by the Authors Guild. Sandy Thatcher >Of interest from the Chronicle of Higher Education > >*** > >HathiTrust Acknowledges Flaws in Handling 'Orphan Works' > >September 16, 2011, 2:04 pm
- Prev by Date: Interview with BioOne's Mark Kurtz
- Next by Date: Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright to journal pub=
- Previous by thread: Re: Hathi Orphans
- Next by thread: Re: Hathi Orphans
- Index(es):