- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: [gutvol-d] copyright clearances
by Joshua Hutchinson 29 Dec '05

29 Dec '05

If they are in English, I'd go with PGDP (they have more volunteer power). If in another language, DP-Europe is better equipped. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Fawthrop" <hyphen(a)hyphenologist.co.uk> > > On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:22:16 -0500, "Joshua Hutchinson" > <joshua(a)hutchinson.net> wrote: > > | Distributed Proofreaders Europe is set up to handle > | the different copyright terms of countries in Europe. > | You might want to give them a try. > | I'm sure they could use plenty of volunteer help! > > I have just thought. The books I do were published in England and > are out of copyright to both US and UK/EU rules. > > So which organisation should I submit them to? > -- > Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Some of my Hobbies: VDU Glasses > http://tinyurl.com/c3lh, Wordlists http://tinyurl.com/c3lj, Celtic fonts > http://tinyurl.com/c3ll, Killfile&Anti Troll FAQs http://tinyurl.com/c3lo > Tyke Dialect http://tinyurl.com/c3ls Curry Project, http://tinyurl.com/1q6 > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

4 3

Re: [gutvol-d] copyright clearances
by Joshua Hutchinson 28 Dec '05

28 Dec '05

Distributed Proofreaders Europe is set up to handle the different copyright terms of countries in Europe. You might want to give them a try. I'm sure they could use plenty of volunteer help! http://dp.rastko.net/ Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Burnhill" <darrenburnhill(a)hotmail.com> To: gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org Subject: [gutvol-d] copyright clearances Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:06:51 +0000 > > Hi, > > Thanks for the (helpful) replies. I appreciate that it is a complicated issue > and should have therefore stated that what I meant was just a link to some > general information/pointers to set people on the right track. > > Is there anyone looking after the interests of the Brits?, as I have > (potentially) quite a few books to submit and 24/7/365 as free time. > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

4 3

copyright clearances
by Darren Burnhill 28 Dec '05

28 Dec '05

Hi, Thanks for the (helpful) replies. I appreciate that it is a complicated issue and should have therefore stated that what I meant was just a link to some general information/pointers to set people on the right track. Is there anyone looking after the interests of the Brits?, as I have (potentially) quite a few books to submit and 24/7/365 as free time.

1 0

copyright clearances
by Darren Burnhill 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

Hi, Does PG have any future plans to ascertain the status of books for countries other than the U.S.? Whilst I think that clarifying the status on the download page is good; Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. A link to some relevant information would be better. BTW: The submit the item link on the copyright-howto page needs updating; http://beryl.ils.unc.edu/copy.html

4 3

re: [gutvol-d] copyright clearances
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

michael said: > A few words from one of our copyright advisors > should serve to settle things down: > US Copyright except the original poster was talking about _outside_ the u.s. i think everyone grants that _inside_ the u.s., project gutenberg's research carries the day. after all, you still haven't been sued, not even once, have you? -bowerbird

1 0

copyright vs creative commons
by N Wolcott 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

Are there any opinions about the suitability of creative commons copyright vs regular copyright when the intent is to allow unlimited personal and non-profit non-commercial use of the works. That is one of the cc options, but I have read that the use of a cc copyright might bring an unwanted third party into any copyright disputes, and might further limit the author's rights. The suggestion was made that making a statement on the copyright page that copying for non commercial etc would be approved on request would do the same thing with fewer potential complications. comments? N Wolcott nwolcott2(a)post.harvard.edu

3 2

re: [gutvol-d] copyright clearances
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

darren said: > A link to some relevant information would be better. such as a referral service to lawyers for consultation? because that's what the world seems to be coming to... -bowerbird

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] the secret garden, revisited
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

greg said: > At that point, the files are accessible > if you know how to navigate to them. > For example, #17392 could be accessed as > http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/7/3/9/17392 oh right, crap, i should have remembered that... so i looked at the version of "the secret garden" that was just created by distributed proofreaders, comparing it to the distillation copy i had prepared. (which itself had resulted from the original e-text of this book that is already in p.g., as e-text #113, being compared with the smoothreading version, so now i was comparing a comparison to a comparison. just so you don't get confused...) ;+) and d.p. did a _very_ good job on it. congratulations... however, i still show 5 outright errors in your version, the details of which i have appended to this message... (the top line in each pair is your line, with the error being followed by the large gap before the next word.) plus there are also 5 special cases outlined below them, where i chose to make edits. your mileage might vary... (but you _did_ make highly similar edits, for consistency.) as a point of reference for bystanders, there were approximately 250-300 points of difference between the d.p.-processed text and the original p.g. e-text, so 5-10 errors in boiling them down isn't _that_ many. 5-10 errors on a book would be _excellent_ on a first-pass. it's respectable even on a comparison project like this one. although perfection _is_ within the realm of obtainability, you've attained a very high accuracy-mark here, especially since your comparison tools probably aren't up to snuff yet. but the one thing that _does_ give me pause on some of the things is that they _should_ have been caught by your tools. any missing end-paragraph terminating-punctuation (page 31) should be caught. ditto a continuation-quote (page 108, but perhaps you were "matching the scan" and passed on that). and a good tool will detect inconsistent and/or irregular usage, of the type that is represented in the additional edits i made... so a comparison tool should eventually find all of your errors here (mine did), but even your _regular_ tools should've caught _some_! so i congratulate you for a job well-done, but recommend you bring your tools up to speed, and then you'll realize perfection, at least on these re-do projects, and maybe first-passes too... anyway, perhaps for 2006, one of your resolutions should be not to alienate any future tool-makers... and in sum, this double-digitization shows nicely how this approach can drive an e-text to perfection, probably better than any other... just in passing, i will note that the postprocessor on this book (miller) must have applied a lot of elbow-grease doing the comparison, because the version that went out for smooth-reading had a _lot_ more errors. there has been a lot of upheaval over at d.p. as a result of the june move to four rounds, but still only two of those rounds are for actual proofing. (the other two are for formatting.) so the primary difference is that the second proofing round is done by a proofer tested to be "more-qualified". i don't know if this text went through the new system or not, but if it did, it does _not_ speak well for it. i highly recommend that d.p. use a _third_ round of proofing. (or even better, adopt the recommendation that i made a while back for a "roundless" system that uses _consensus_ as the factor that promotes a page from the proofing rounds into the formatting rounds.) also, it would be nice if -- when d.p. does a "re-do" project like this one -- d.p. would package up the various iterations of the process and make 'em available to researchers like myself so that we could examine the output at the different stages and do work on improving the overall results... so how 'bout it, d.p. people, will you furnish that material on this book? (indeed, if you could package up the results of each round into a .zip file, for _every_ book you do, that would be a great resource for researchers.) -bowerbird ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ these are your errors, by the scans and/or common sense: p. 31 also. "That there?" she said "Yes." "That's also. "That there?" she said. "Yes." "That's p. 129 blades. "There's lots o' 'dead wood as blades. "There's lots o' dead wood as p. 187 told her anything," said Colin, "She heard told her anything," said Colin. "She heard p. 222 out between two sobs: "Sh--show her! She--she'll see then!" out between two sobs: "Sh-show her! She-she'll see then!" p. 287 "It is my garden now, I am "It is my garden now. I am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ and here are 5 edits, contra-scans, that i made for consistency: p. 91 an' I was in practice." Mary got an' I was in practise." Mary got p. 108 to her: "_My Dear Dickon:_ This comes hoping to her: _"My Dear Dickon:_ "This comes hoping p. 109 bit o' mother's hot oat cake, an' butter, bit o' mother's hot oat-cake, an' butter, p. 254 said Mary quite seriously. "An tha' munnot said Mary quite seriously. "An' tha' munnot p. 326 got into my throat." "But" she said got into my throat." "But," she said ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ there was also this edit, from the earlier p.g. version, that i liked, so i kept it in my version as a tribute to the original type-in e-text. p. 108 him?" asked Martha suddenly, she had looked him?" asked Martha suddenly, for Mary had looked ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] the secret garden, revisited
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

i said: > i will check this final posted p.g./d.p. version > against my distillation and see what pops up... well, i will when it shows up, anyway... :+) (i guess the "posted" digest is a bit premature; takes a little time for the e-text page to go live.) -bowerbird

2 1

the secret garden, revisited
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 26 Dec '05

26 Dec '05

i see "the secret garden" was posted as #17396. this is a re-digitization of a very early e-text -- #113. as i've said before, different digitizations can serve as a check on each other, and therefore boost accuracy _considerably_. i did a check of a preliminary d.p. version against the project gutenberg #113, and have posted my z.m.l. distillation here: > http://snowy.arsc.alaska.edu/bowerbird/2005cleanup/tsg4.zml (in-progress versions tsg1 through tsg3 are also there.) i will check this final posted p.g./d.p. version against my distillation and see what pops up... -bowerbird

1 0