[bksvol-discuss] Re: better quality book rejected
- From: "Paula and James Muysenberg" <outofsightlife@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:38:43 -0500
Mike,
One of the things I addressed in my three e-mails, which were not
answered, was the need for clearer guidelines as to what is acceptable.
Maybe I've missed something, but until my books were rejected, I was under
the impression that as long as a book contained copyright information, it
was elligible for Bookshare. If that's not the case, then couldn't some
staff member take ten or fifteen minutes to update the guidelines, so
would-be submitters are not left guessing?
Again, if Bookshare truly is too busy raising funds to answer e-mails
from current subscribers, then they are indeed in a dilemma. Can they really
believe none of these folks (such as the lady Pat mentioned), whose
questions are being brushed aside, will not say anything to potential users.
How will this situation not eventually affect funding?
Paula
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Pietruk" <pietruk@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 12:05 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: better quality book rejected
> Paula
>
> I'm guessing that your books were Christian-related ones which couldn't
> have their copyrights verified.
> This appears to be a real problem as certain ministries, while
> copyrighting of course, don't follow up with the normal registrations.
> The best wwe can do, as volunteers, is attempt to figure out which books
> won't cut the mustard prior to scanning them for BookShare.
> The two things I've observed is that contemporary books without isbn
> numbers stand a good chance of rejection on copyright concerns.
> So with books not registed with the Library of Congress copyright office.
> At least if we can avoid scanning books likely for rejection, or knowing
> what is likely to face question, we don't waste time and effort in
> scanning and then validating.
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
