[bksvol-discuss] Re: venting my frustrations

  • From: Cindy <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:09:03 -0800 (PST)

Very thorough explanation, Gerald. You pre-empted my
suggestions nicely, and I thank you. And yes, I'm
willing to search if people needed sighted help and
don't have a helpful spouse to eye thebook pages, or
the time to check sites like the gov. site and
amazon.com

Cindy

--- Gerald Hovas <geraldhovas@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
 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.

Other related posts: