[bksvol-discuss] Re: boot camp for christians
- From: "Gerald Hovas" <geraldhovas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:38:00 -0500
Tracy,
I don't know what happened with your book The Wild Bill Nightmare, but
sometimes, like with Boot Camp for Christians, the copyright holder is not
the author, and I think Gustavo just wants to have some confidence that the
holder is correct before approving the book.
In the future, if you've gone to the trouble of verifying the copyright,
then be sure to mention that in the comments along with what you did to
verify that copyright. That way Gustavo has some confidence in the
copyright holder and is less likely to kick it back.
I won't say he won't kick it back even if you include that information in
the comments, because Gustavo kicked back one of mine with that information
by mistake once because he was staying up late to approve books and was
tired. When I inquired about the problem because there were no comments at
all as to why he kicked it back, he told me not to worry and to just
reupload it for him so he could reprocess it. Remember, we all make
mistakes now and then. <Smile>
Gerald
-----Original Message-----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tracy Carcione
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:56 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: boot camp for christians
Jake and Mike,
All I meant was, if the book says, plain as day, copyright so-and-so, why
isn't that good enough?
Reference the Wild Bill nightmare, where the book says the copyright date
and holder, copyright.gov agrees, and it still gets kicked back.
I guess I do want to know what Gustavo is thinking, because there is
something here I'm not getting. But I still have no desire to become a
copyright lawyer. I just want some simple, easy-to-follow, guideline. I
miss Jesse; he was good at those.
Tracy
At 08:40 AM 7/6/05 -0500, you wrote:
>Hey Tracy,
> Gustavo has kicked the book back to the validation page with requests
>for verification of copyright four times now. This does seem to suggest
that
>the information needs to be verifiable somewhere else.
> For instance, I actually validated something (surprise!) a while back
>and had it sent back to the validation page for copyright verification. I
>was unable to find the information on the Library of Congress website, but
I
>did find a sample chapter of the book on the publisher's website. That page
>also had the same copyright information as the book and so I reuploaded the
>book referencing the site and Gustavo approved it.
> On the other hand, I validated a book a while back and Gustavo sent
that
>one back too (notice a pattern, I must be jinxed), but I never did find the
>necessary info and so I allowed the book to make it's way back to step one.
>Quite a shame too, the scan was excellent, but I had read it and made a few
>corrections.
>
> Since we generally scan books and we know the problems OCR can have, it
>might be a BookShare policy to have a second place to make sure copyright
>info is correct. I for one am glad that BookShare is actively attempting to
>make sure it follows the law...after all we all want it to stick around
>*grin*
>
>HTH,
>Jake
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tracy Carcione" <carcione@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:26 AM
>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] boot camp for christians
>
>
>> Mike,
>> I don't think we have to worry so much about what the copyright office
>has,
>> or doesn't have, so long as there is a copyright name and date in the
>book.
>> We aren't lawyers, just volunteers. If the book says so-and-so has the
>> copyright, that should be good enough. I don't want to know the
>intracacies
>> of copyright law! :.)
>> Tracy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/39 - Release Date: 7/4/2005
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
