tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post2586347587307770927..comments2024-03-28T13:39:27.601-07:00Comments on DSHR's Blog: Public Resource Audits Scholarly LiteratureDavid.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-80314595281131046182018-04-10T09:41:06.605-07:002018-04-10T09:41:06.605-07:00At some point the AMA backed off from their copyri...At some point the AMA backed off from their copyright claim. Barack Obama's article now carries this:<br /><br />"<b>Disclaimer:</b> The journal’s copyright notice applies to the distinctive display of this JAMA article, and not the President’s work or words."David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-77580485456083495032017-06-09T01:47:01.772-07:002017-06-09T01:47:01.772-07:00This is magnificent. Bravo to Malamud! His mention...This is magnificent. Bravo to Malamud! His mention of lapsed copyrights is also promising: that is, anything published in the US before 1964 on which copyright was not renewed. This is a vast untapped resource. Surprisingly, renewal was uncommon: even top journals failed to do it. For instance, Nature and Science never renewed their copyrights, 'Journal of the American Medical Association' didn't before 1960, and 'New England Journal of Medicine' didn't before 1957. Only a handful of journals renewed before 1940. I would guess that the vast majority of scientific articles published before 1964 are in the public domain in the US. All that remains is for them to be shared.<br />There is a thorough list of renewals here:<br />http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.htmlThomas Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08958227409209660002noreply@blogger.com