tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19248311.post2874525070365915544..comments2023-05-30T15:51:50.563+01:00Comments on Exact Editions: Google Book Search and the Tragedy of the Anti-CommonsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19248311.post-82339027347018783372009-02-03T15:43:00.000+00:002009-02-03T15:43:00.000+00:00This is the Suber link that I should have given re...This is the Suber link that I should have given re "visible/readable"<BR/>http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/01/accessing-google-scanned-books-from.htmlAdam Hodgkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13855740291868776584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19248311.post-9218749491600235542009-02-03T13:15:00.000+00:002009-02-03T13:15:00.000+00:00Adam, Just a little glitch -- I think the link URL...Adam, Just a little glitch -- I think the link URL is wrong here:<BR/>"are not visible or readable elsewhere" -- I'm curious to see the correct link!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19248311.post-51600413130553317392009-02-02T14:52:00.000+00:002009-02-02T14:52:00.000+00:00Hi Eric -- I was not taking umbrage -- If you look...Hi Eric -- I was not taking umbrage -- If you look at question 5 in the Daniels Pub Quiz and the anonymous expert's response you will see what I was referring to:<BR/>"5. Photographs will be suppressed in this program unless there is an alternative framework for their use."<BR/>The anonymous expert (I have no idea who he is, but I suspect he knows the law in this area well) might have been leaving open the possibility that Google could reach a compromise settlement with the Agencies which represent Artists, Illustrators and Photographers etc. That would be the 'alternative framework'.Adam Hodgkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13855740291868776584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19248311.post-50053867832076943992009-02-02T14:33:00.000+00:002009-02-02T14:33:00.000+00:00Adam, Thanks for the informative posting! I was ce...Adam, Thanks for the informative posting! I was certainly not questioning the accuracy of your comment to my posting when I said that there don't seem to be others saying what you're saying. To the contrary, I think that your observations are likely right on target. My point is that, as important as these questions are for the future use of online books, it's unfortunate that almost no one seems to be thinking about them. So you're to be applauded for being one of the few!<BR/><BR/>The comment that you cite on the Martyn Daniels blog is useful, but it still does not have much to say about illustrations. So I think that what you say in this posting, along with the comments on my posting, by you and Marc Aronson, remain the best discussion of the rights to illustrations and pictures in orphan books in Google Books.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19248311.post-73145943287467232122009-02-02T07:14:00.000+00:002009-02-02T07:14:00.000+00:00i like what you had to say and believe that there ...i like what you had to say and believe that there is a need to get a common understanding of the issues and ramifications of the settlement before May 5th and its too late.<BR/><BR/>Google is posting its legal notices now in the broadsheets but still there is a silence in the press that makes little sense.<BR/><BR/>This is the biggest thing to happen to (not in) publishing and effects authors, agents, contributors, bookselelrs,libraries, institutional libraries, researchers, education, readers, rights contracts, royalty payments, subsidary rights, permission rights. <BR/><BR/>I have noted your article in a blog today<BR/>http://bookseller-association.blogspot.com/2009/02/great-book-bank-robbery-different.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com