On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:44:20AM -0500, jeroen@bohol.ph wrote:
Quoting Ken Arromdee <arromdee@gmx.com>:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, Greg Newby wrote:
It is possible by comparing the full 2009 edition with a printed copy from 1923. It's not impossible, it is just extra work.
In this type of situation, it might be easier to obtain a 1923 printed publication and scan it.
If you have to have the original in order to prove that it's okay to scan the reprint, that essentially means that reprints are useless as a source of scans at all (barring edge cases like originals that you don't have permission to scan but do have permission to read).
That is right, but a lot of reprints are facsimiles, and in this case (if it is mentioned, or very clear from the appearance), no need to access the original. I've got several clearances based on this.
Jeroen
Correct. We clear hundreds of facsimiles every year. That is not the situation that Ken brought to us. With a facsimile, the printed book (or scans) are basically indistinguishable from the original. It might have some minimalist info on the verso that indicates it's a facsimile. Most don't have modern stuff like LoC cataloging info in the book. That's not the situation you brought. You brought a 2009 publication with a new cover, so it is not so clearly a facsimile. "Proving" it's a facsimile require comparing to a known earlier work. Concerning (Ken's) your comment about Weird etc.: I don't know what scanning policy you are writing about. It's perfectly acceptable to include high resolution scans. Best, - Greg