Mike, I understand that not all books are in the Copyright Office's online database. That is why I meant to recommend verifying copyrights through www.copyright. gov when it's an option. I had written it that way, but must have deleted it by accident when editing the message. I agree that in most instances I would be perfectly comfortable with taking a volunteer's word that the copyright is what they say it is. In fact, that is what Gustavo does nearly every time he sits down to approve books. There is no way for him to approve 5000 books in a year if he had to verify every single copyright on his own rather than taking the volunteer's word for most books and simply questioning the info which appears to be an instance of someone filling out the form incorrectly. In Gustavo's defense, I believe he's not making that many mistakes when he questions copyright information, and it is only proper for him to err on the side of caution. As for what is reasonable proof of copyright, I would say that would depend on each individual instance and the volunteer who is providing the proof. In many instances Gustavo will not be familiar with the volunteer and will require more proof than he might if he is familiar with someones work. In the instances where he is very familiar with a person's work, then it might only require a brief note in the comments stating that they have verified the copyright with no additional explanation. In other instances, he might require a particular volunteer to walk into Bookshare's office and show him the book which they scanned before he would feel comfortable with approving their book because he has seen them make to many mistakes with copyright info for him to take their word that the copyright is correct. Unfortunately, there are a few volunteers like that out there, and those volunteers make it more difficult sometimes for the rest of us to get books approved without going to a little extra effort on our part because it has become all to obvious to Gustavo that not everyone understands the concept of copyright notification. My advice is to always include a note in the Comment field when the copyright isn't held by the author. Doing so informs Gustavo that you are aware of the information you have entered. However, that doesn't address the issue that you understand how to properly identify a copyright holder. Adding additional information about how you verified the copyright helps him know that you understand the difference between copyright holders, titles, and publishers. The reason I recommend verifying copyrights through www.copyright.gov when possible and informing him when you do so is because it allows Gustavo to easily verify the copyright independently on his own if he wishes. It's not practical for him to speak with the sighted individual who verified the copyright for you in order for him to establish that that individual understands how to identify the copyright holder. In the instances where a book isn't listed on www.copyright.gov you might substitute a note about a website which contains a scanned image of the copyright page for that book. I believe Cindy has stated that she has found these on Amazon.com. That would allow him another way to independently verify the copyright if he chooses since Gustavo isn't visually impaired and can read the scanned image without the aid of OCR software. In the instance where it is not possible to provide proof through the internet, then I'd suggest copying the copyright notice into the comments field, having a sighted individual verify that that text appears in the book, then including a note informing Gustavo that a sighted spouse, relative, or friend has verified that the text in the comments match the copyright notice in the book. While all of this may seem too much effort to have to go to in order to establish reasonable confidence that the copyright holder is correct, it probably takes less time than volunteers usually spend discussing the issue when a book does get kicked back. Also once you establish that you know what you're doing, it should take less proof to make Gustavo confident that you know what you're doing and are responsible enough to make sure that the correct information is being entered into the database. That's really what it boils down to: Gustavo having confidence in you knowing what you're doing and confidence that you are acting responsibly to ensure the correct information has been entered into the fields on the form. When you get right down to it, this isn't that big of a deal. Based on the message traffic on the list, I'd guess that less than one percent of the books actually have trouble making it onto the site, and a little extra effort should be able to help get these books approved. I'm not aware of a single instance where getting help from the right volunteers couldn't help get a book approved, only instances where volunteers weren't interested enough in getting a particular book into the collection to help. After all, even the poster child of copyright issues, Boot Camp For Christians finally made it into the collection once other volunteers got involved with verifying the copyright. BTW, we're attempting to address the lack of understanding of how to identify the copyright holder by including examples of copyright notices in the new volunteering instructions along with the correct information to enter into the Copyright Name and Copyright Date fields similar to what Carrie did with the title and author fields in her Guidelines for Submission Fields message. The info from Carrie's message will be included as well since it's info that volunteers need to know. I've made a note that quotations from reviews shouldn't be included in the long synopsis, and I'll try to write a tip for the Comments field which can be included in the new instructions as well. That should ensure Gustavo reviews the suggestions above and makes any changes or additions that he deems appropriate. In the mean time, I'd suggest that volunteers ask for help on the list for what to include in the comments if they think they might have a problem getting a book approved due to an unusual copyright holder and are unsure how to handle it. HTH Gerald -----Original Message----- From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike Pietruk Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 6:37 AM To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: venting my frustrations Gerald I understand that submitters and validators can and do fill out forms incorrectly. I do understand that scanners/ocr software can and do scan/recognize incorrectly. And, yes, I do understand why, under the exemption BookShare operates within the copyright law, why the copyright being correct is important. Having said that, however, there are many instances that books do not make the copyright office database allowing for a simple verification as some publishers and authors simply don't bother with that registration for whatever reason. Yet, of course, they are still copyrighted. I guess what floors me is why one would doubt the stated copyright within the book itself. If the book itself on the printed page says xxx is the publisher, then it is safe that xxx is the publisher. It is one thing to doubt the competency of the submitter/validator in filling out forms, it is another to doubt the printed page itself. I think it is this latter point that has many of us scratching our heads. To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line. To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.