26 replies to this topic

[Bob Payne]

Here is some great material that could be converted over to e-Sword, but alas I do not have the time. Perhaps someone else will. Good stuff!... http://biblicalresea...nfo/index.html

RJP

[patchworkid]

Hi,

I just looked over the link and found that these books will be very easy to convert to Topics using T4. I will do 70 Weeks of Daniel since this lines up with what I will be teaching next month.

All you have to do is select the book you want to convert and save as html file finally open the html file in T4 and make the Topic from there. - Just my suggestion.

thanks
Patchworkid

[journey]

Here is some great material that could be converted over to e-Sword, but alas I do not have the time. Perhaps someone else will. Good stuff!... http://biblicalresea...nfo/index.html

RJP

I didn't check the site closely, but I didn't find any copyright information, permissions, or even the year that the materials were authored. I'll go back when I have more time, but I don't want to spend a lot of time a find out it can't be used.

[Bob Payne]

Thanks, you two! Patchworkid, perhaps I will try to convert these for folks to use when I get a few moments. It may not be until the middle of the summer. Thanks again!

[Vaughn]

Check for the copyrights with those folks listed at the bottom of the page.

[Bob Payne]

Checked with the folks who own the copyright to the material. All the material on the web site is under copyright, and it was used by permission...so no module forthcoming!

[Josh Bond]

People mean well but frequently just don't understand copyrights.

For example, this book is not under copyright: http://biblicalresea...fo/page211.html I know that because it was published before 1963 and no copyright extension was filed. That was the first one I happened to pick. I quickly noted that another was revised in 1983 but the original was published in the 40s and was also not under copyright. It's a case by case basis.

[BaptizedBeliever]

Now, let me make sure I understand this correctly. I have a book, printed pre-1963, but it doesn't appear anywhere on the Copyright Renewal Database. That means it is public domain?

[DoctorDaveT]

Stanford & Rutgers Universities both have built a copyright renewal database for works originally copyrighted from 1923-1963. If the work was not renewed, it is not listed in their database.

I've pulled this quote from Stanford's web page about accuracy:

Stanford has performed two rounds of testing in order to assess the accuracy of this database. In each round, we pulled a minimum of 500 book titles published in the US between 1923 and 1963 from the Stanford library catalog. The works were checked manually in the CCE, and, in the first round, a subset of 100 records was also sent to the Copyright Office to be checked by their in-house staff. Each of these items was then separately searched by project staff in the Copyright Renewals Database. In each round, the error rate for the database was found to be less than 1%....

While not 100% fool proof, it is certainly the best thing we have access to (unless you have physical access to the the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. - those records are definitive). My guess is if Stanford & Rutgers missed a copyright renewal, then the copyright holder has probably completely forgotten about it anyway.

Worst case: after a module is built, you'll have to take it down. I can't imagine anyone actually being sued; after all, if you've checked the Stanford & Rutgers databases, you've performed "due diligence" and attempted to follow the letter of the law. If a work actually is under copyright but not listed by those universities, then the module gets unlisted.

I have heard of obvious copyright infringements where lawsuits were threatened. The infringement was so egregious that the website owner should have known better. I have never heard of a module built where a title was unlisted by Rutgers & Stanford that was actually under copyright.*

I'm not exactly sure of Josh's position on copyright**; but at DDT I treat Stanford & Rutgers "as official" when it comes to copyright status.

For more information, See the DDT Copyright Statement Page


*There was one I did hear about, but it was a re-copyright, and not a renewal. It had to do with NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
**I'm pretty sure it's the same as mine, but not 100% sure

[BaptizedBeliever]

Dave,

Thanks for the post. So, I am trying to make sure, in layman's terms, that I understand this.

If a book is printed pre-1963, and does not appear on the Stanford Copyright Renewal Database, it is considered public domain?

Usually? Always? Or is there another caveat that comes in to play? What if a company has been printing the book and selling it since its original publication date in the 1930s? Does that have anything to do with it, or does the fact that they didn't renew the copyright mean that it is public domain now?

I really need to understand this properly because I've got some books that would make great modules, but I need to make sure of this before I invest the hours of time in making them.