Comments on: Most books published 1923-63 in public domain

Most books published 1923-63 in public domain

stbalbach — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:23:41 -0800

"For U.S. books published between 1923 and 1963, the rights holder needed to submit a form to the U.S. Copyright Office renewing the copyright 28 years after publication. In most cases, books that were never renewed are now in the public domain. Estimates of how many books were renewed vary, but everyone agrees that most books weren't renewed. If true, that means that the majority of U.S. books published between 1923 and 1963 are freely usable." How do you know? The renewal copyright records have traditionally been scattered and hard to access, but Google - with the help of Project Gutenberg and the Distributed Proofreaders painstakingly typed in every word - has just released a single database as a freely downloadable XML file.

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:28:34 -0800

That's amazing and wonderful news. Thanks, stbalbach.

By: cashman

cashman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:40 -0800

56 megs.

By: cog_nate

cog_nate — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:33:33 -0800

56 megs of unbelievable awesomeness. Thanks, stbalbach.

By: fuzzypantalones

fuzzypantalones — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:35:04 -0800

oh nice! very good to know.

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:36:42 -0800

...and, wait, the announcement was written by Jon Orwant? Google really is getting all the alpha geeks, aren't they?

By: phooky

phooky — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:40:00 -0800

This is fantastic on several levels. Hooray for the awesome. I'm rather amused that I can't just search through the file on Google's site, though.

By: Monochrome

Monochrome — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:42:46 -0800

Thanks for this. I hope this leads to more free ebooks!

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:45:01 -0800

the README:

VERSION: 1.01 (June 24, 2008) This is a set of the U.S. copyright renewal records for books. The United States Copyright Office maintains the authoritative list of copyright registrations and renewals. The recording of those registrations is called the Catalog of Copyright Entries, and the renewal records are part of the catalog. Up until 1977, they are hardbound volumes, and very few copies exist. From 1978 onward, they are all online at http://www.copyright.gov/records/. The tireless members of the Distributed Proofreaders and Project Gutenberg corrected the OCR from the pre-1978 hardbound volumes, with page images supplied by the Universal Library Project at Carnegie Mellon. They are available in their original form at http://www.gutenberg.org. The 1978-onward data has been downloaded from the U.S. Copyright Office. These two collections of records -- the pre-1978 and the 1978-onward -- are available as a single XML file: google-renewals-all-20080516.xml. We believe we have compiled the only complete set of monograph renewal records outside of the U.S. Copyright Office. This is not a perfect set of renewal records and may contain inaccuracies. The attached letter (letter_from_marybeth_peters.pdf) from Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters declares the records to be in the public domain.

By: penduluum

penduluum — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:46:01 -0800

Outstanding.

By: cortex

cortex — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:46:53 -0800

Holy goddam. It's xmas in June.

By: Jofus

Jofus — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:49:55 -0800

Take *that*, non digital archives of things!

By: anthill

anthill — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:50:52 -0800

So now I can legally read some mashups?

By: DU

DU — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:51:01 -0800

56 MB of just book titles has got to contain some gold.

By: Malor

Malor — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:52:02 -0800

Yay for the commons!! The perpetual extension of copyright makes it extremely difficult for there to be any more Disneys, people or companies who take ideas from the global pool and remix them into something with a more modern appeal. This is not, I think, accidental; the existing media companies are trying very hard to own everything, forever. This is very, very good news, a treasure trove of material that can now be reused and remixed freely. You may not see the benefits for awhile, and may never realize it when it happens, but this list will probably make your life a little better. Heck, for the instant-gratification crowd, the potential pool of free e-books just grew a whole bunch, so maybe you will notice it. :)

By: Osrinith

Osrinith — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:52:32 -0800

Revealing my own ignorance of the subject here: is this good news from the standpoint of creating online copies of all these books without the hassle of copyright permission? Is that the sum total of the goodness or are there more nuances that I'm missing?

By: Osrinith

Osrinith — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:53:09 -0800

Ahhhh... Thanks, Malor.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:53:56 -0800

Looks to be about 1/2 a million titles, a small fraction of the number of books published during that period, orders of magnitude. $ grep "Title" google-renewals-all-20080624.xml | wc 436214

By: Malor

Malor — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:54:17 -0800

(actually, to be more specific, this is a list of what ISN'T available.... so if you have an old book, and it's not on the list, it's most likely really and truly yours, in all senses of the word. You can do anything you want with it.)

By: cog_nate

cog_nate — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:55:09 -0800

Heck, for the instant-gratification crowd, the potential pool of free e-books just grew a whole bunch, so maybe you will notice it. :) Indeed, and if you think Google's only aim was to produce this list, you've got another (extremely amazing) thing coming.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:57:55 -0800

you've got another...thing coming. banhammer

By: cog_nate

cog_nate — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:59:50 -0800

banhammer ?

By: jedicus

jedicus — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:01:26 -0800

cog_nate: I refer you to this thread, which devolved into a (ahem) discussion of whether the proper phrase is "another thing coming" or "another think coming."

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:07:21 -0800

Okay, seriously. Is this for real? I mean, for real, real? As in, isn't Congress just going to pass a bill tomorrow that says whoops, sorry about that, here's your copyright back?

By: thrako

thrako — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:12:15 -0800

Awesome. What program/language should I learn to best explore these data?

By: fings

fings — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:22:13 -0800

Stanford has a searchable version of the copyright renewals database (also based off the Project Gutenberg copy of the renewals). Probably easier than hacking an XML file yourself.

By: WCityMike

WCityMike — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:24:05 -0800

For this very reason, one of my grandmother's autobiographies is in the public domain. She was a Christian medical missionary¹ under house arrest during the Second Sino-Japanese War, and when her book fell into the public domain, the Internet Archive grabbed her autobiography and OCRd and PDFd it, God bless them. (And the Flip Book thing is cool.) Unfortunately, Kessinger Publishing grabbed a copy of her book from the public domain and started selling it for $23 a whack. One of my longer-term projects is to see if I can her old publishers to release the copyright on the rest of her stuff (which they have through 2020-2050ish) and then put it in the Creative Commons. ¹I know that "missionary" can bring preachiness to mind nowadays, but she and my grandfather were remarkably open-minded and non-preachy, preferring to "testify by example."

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:30:01 -0800

Most books published 1923-63 in public domain Implies that books published before 1923 aren't public domain, which is technically incorrect. Most books published before 1963, and are not on this list are in the public domain.

By: symbollocks

symbollocks — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:33:31 -0800

So, looking at a few famous titles published in 1962, I'm 3 for 4 so far (meaning 3 out of the 4 are on the list and thus still copyrighted). Island, by Aldous Huxley - Not Copyrighted (grepped for <Title>Island</Title>) A Wrinkle In Time, by Madeleine L'Engle - Copyrighted The Man in the High Castle, by Philip K. Dick - Copyrighted One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, by Ken Kesey - Copyrighted

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:45:03 -0800

> Stanford has a searchable version of the copyright renewals database (also based off the Project Gutenberg copy of the renewals). There's room for more work because Stanford's only providing access to book titles (Class A registrations), and there are periodicals in the full list (for example, The New York Herald is the third record, with years worth of daily publications). Google's XML file is also more recent than Stanford's if their datestamps can be trusted, which may or may not indicate that more records were added. I can't be bothered to check.

By: blucevalo

blucevalo — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:49:37 -0800

Holy cow, what a terrific post. Thanks!

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:01:40 -0800

Stanford's dataset is available for download however it appears to be very incomplete. There is no (zero) data for years 1923-49. Stanford: 12.2 MB zip Google: 56.5 MB zip I did a rough count of Stanford's records for 1950-1963 and came up with about 50,000. Compare this with Googles 430+,000 records (1923-63). In addition Googles records have a lot more fields of data. I would not rely on Stanford. As Google (Jon Orwant) says "we believe this is the best and most comprehensive set of renewal records available today."

By: avoision

avoision — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:02:23 -0800

What apps are you all using to peek in at the XML? It's a humongo 370MB+ file, and I'm crashing out everytime I try to use something like BBEdit to view it.

By: anotherpanacea

anotherpanacea — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:06:19 -0800

Sweet Mother of Google.

By: symbollocks

symbollocks — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:07:24 -0800

Grep it from the command line like this: grep -i "<title>Some Title</title>" google-renewals-all-20080624.xml If it returns results then it's still copyrighted.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:23:18 -0800

Someone should really make a web interface to this data, right? Like, I dunno, Google?

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:32:59 -0800

Great news—thanks!

By: the dief

the dief — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:35:09 -0800

Hot dog!!!!

By: absalom

absalom — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:47:46 -0800

Okay, seriously. Is this for real? I mean, for real, real? As in, isn't Congress just going to pass a bill tomorrow that says whoops, sorry about that, here's your copyright back? Oh, good lord no! (Just don't make them to make this mistake again.)

By: Avenger

Avenger — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:05:24 -0800

I bet within 24 hours of this FPP, the US Congress is going to pass a law making all works published from 4000 BC to 1963 AD retroactively copyrighted to the Disney corp. We need to protect Hammurabi's Code from pirates!

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:10:30 -0800

most books weren't renewed. Is this one of those things where it's "most books" just because there are so many damn books that no one cares about, and any book you actually want was renewed?

By: drezdn

drezdn — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:11:18 -0800

Thanks for posting this. I have some automative guides from the 1920s that could probably be used to build a vintage car from scratch and I was wondering whether or not it would be legal to make it available to other people.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:16:31 -0800

any book you actually want was renewed It depends on what type of books you're looking for. There's a publishing company (actually several depending on the subject) that specializes in reprinting out-of-print books on foundry techniques, metalworking books, etc. from the late 1800s and early 1900s. The information is only useful/interesting to a very small segment of the population, but to those people it's incredibly useful. For the stuff the average person would find interesting (say popular literature), it's probably already pretty easy to track down a very inexpensive version. The exception would probably be lesser known works by major authors.

By: clockworkjoe

clockworkjoe — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:29:21 -0800

Well, it's not just personal consumption. Public domain works can be reinterpreted by new artists, so if for example Huxley's Island is available then anyone can make a comic or a movie out of it.

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:04:04 -0800

> Public domain works can be reinterpreted by new artists, so if for example Huxley's Island is available then anyone can make a comic or a movie out of it. Or, more importantly, somebody can take thematic swipes from Island and use them in their own work for the benefit of interpretation, rebuttal, revision, or other artistic filtering that helps further progress in the arts, and the swipes can remain matters of aesthetic judgement rather than law. This goes far beyond the ability to make a movie without paying license fees.

By: MrChowWow

MrChowWow — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:16:10 -0800

Maybe someone wants to hook this up with these folks: http://publicdomainreprints.org/ C~

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:12:41 -0800

Woo hoo! Thanks, stbalbach!

By: Senator

Senator — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:26:47 -0800

For the uneducated in these matters, (me), what would I do with this xml file and why is it so great? Not even sure how to read an xml file. /self ban

By: bystander

bystander — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:42:57 -0800

Senator: If you have a desire to do something with an old book, like make a movie, sell copies, include portions in some other work etc. you have to be sure of the copyright status of said book. If it is copyright, you must seek a release or license from the holder, but if it is in the public domain you can do what you wish. Up to now, it could prove very difficult to establish the copyright holder for more obscure works, so you could not get a license, or be sure the work was out of copyright. This uncertainty usually meant that derivative works were close to impossible to get published, as publication of a copyrighted work (even in ignorance) could lead to legal action. This list eliminates some of this confusion. If the work you wish to use is included, you will need a license or release. If it is not, then it is no longer protected, and is in the public domain. This means there are now potentially millions of public domain works that can now be used. Examples of the possible uses would be films (e.g like Disney makes films of fairy tales), uses in other works (e.g. a collection of depression era photos or recipes) and straight reprints - making information like old car manuals etc. available again. even things like that site with gross recipe photos.

By: verstegan

verstegan — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:24:51 -0800

Just a quick reminder that the USA is not the world. Huxley's Island may be in the public domain in the US, but here in the UK it remains in copyright until 70 years after the death of the author, i.e. 1963 + 70 = 2033. I take the point about remixes, mashups, etc, but isn't this a bit beside the point? I mean, this is part of the Google plan for mass digitization, right? I don't think Google is publishing this information out of the kindness of its heart in order to encourage personal artistic endeavour. By digitizing so many out-of-copyright titles, Google hopes to be in a stronger position to force publishers to agree licensing terms for in-copyright titles. Incidentally, Microsoft recently cancelled its digitization programme and took down its Live Search Books service , thus leaving GoogleBooks without a serious competitor in this field.

By: unSane

unSane — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:38:49 -0800

Seconding Verstegan. For example, if you want to make a movie out of a book you're gonna need worldwide rights.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:26:00 -0800

I don't think Google is publishing this information out of the kindness of its heart in order to encourage personal artistic endeavour. Uh-no: 1. Google didn't digitize the data. The 'Distributed Proofreaders' did - it's entirely an 'open source' project done by the same type of volunteers who made Wikipedia, Linux and other projects, people working in their spare time for the love of helping others. 2. The only role that Google played is that a single (1) programmer spent perhaps one or two days messaging the data into XML format to make it easier for others to access it. If Google hadn't done it first someone else would have eventually. leaving GoogleBooks without a serious competitor in this field. Not at all, the Open Content Alliance is still going strong, Internet Archive has been adding thousands of new books every day, 5 days a week. I'm actually glad Microsoft pulled out as they added irritating watermarks to the PDFs (every page). Plus it puts the OCA in a stronger position as a fully publically funded venture. force publishers to agree licensing terms for in-copyright titles. I don't follow the logic. How is this XML file going to force publishers to agree to re-license in-copyright titles? It's just a copyright renewal list that has always existed, now in digital format for end-users to access.

By: yz

yz — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:39:57 -0800

Huxley's Island does appear in the file:

<Record> <CopyrightYear>1962</CopyrightYear> <RenewalYear>1990</RenewalYear> <File>web-1990-10.txt</File> <Recno>387204</Recno> <Lines>15520-15529</Lines> <MD5Sum>3e69a64108b11482a4d8b236d8e0ab34</MD5Sum> <Title>Island</Title> <Copyright> <Date>1962-03-28</Date> <Id>A00000552929</Id> </Copyright> <Renewal> <Date>1990-10-16</Date> <Id>RE0000494475</Id> </Renewal> <Contrib> <Name>Aldous Leonard Huxley</Name> <Role></Role> </Contrib> <Holder> <Name>Laura Huxley</Name> <Type>W</Type> </Holder> <Source>usco</Source> <Snippet> ID: RE0000494475 OCLS: Text DREG: 1990-10-16 OREG: A00000552929 ODAT: 1962-03-28 CLNA: Laura Huxley (W) TITL: Island. Name: Aldous Leonard Huxley Name: Laura Huxley AUTH: Aldous Leonard Huxley. </Snippet> </Record>

By: drezdn

drezdn — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:42:28 -0800

Well, so much for publishing my Aldous Huxley's Island slash-fic.

By: yz

yz — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:23:14 -0800

A response to a Creative Commons note about the file announces that a rudimentary and preliminary (and possibly unreliable (at least insofar as searches seem to return a maximum of fifty results)) interface to the data does exist:

Elizabeth Townsend Gard July 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 am My research assistant, Matt Miller, a 3L student at Tulane Law School, put together this simple program to search the records. We are working on a more sophisticated tool for copyright duration that we should have completed in the Fall, but we thought we would to make this available for others now. http://renewalrecords.urbanpug.com