View Single Post
Old 07-07-2009, 02:28 PM   #20
bobcdy
Fanatic
bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bobcdy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
bobcdy's Avatar
 
Posts: 527
Karma: 1048576
Join Date: May 2009
Device: bebook; prs-950; nook simple touch; HTC Jetstream tablet
Nate,
Thanks for the info. I think I finally understand the Stanford database significance: Proj. Gutenberg has a text version of data from the pertinent U.S. Copyright Office records for the years 1950-1993, and Stanford's database is based on the same files. According to U.S. law, renewals for the important period 1923-1963 must be filed 28 years after the original copyright was granted; thus for the Levinrew book, first copyrighted in 1933, renewal should have been requested in 1933 + 28 = 1961 - the record would be in the card catalog of the Copyright Office reading room if renewal was requested. The Pro. Gutenberg texts and the Stanford database covers renewals for all these years so that a search of either of these online record sources SHOULD be the same as searching the Copyright Office reading room records and the web searchable Copyright Office database that starts in 1978. Not finding renewals in the Stanford database should be sufficient to justify submission of an ebook, because the database (or the Proj. Gut. text files) is the best record source available.

If anyone has different opinions please let me know.
Bob
bobcdy is offline   Reply With Quote