[Eril-l] New York Times historical newspapers (PQ) vs Microfilm

Mon Dec 11 15:22:14 PST 2017

In my search to find more detail about this longstanding issue I ran across this lengthy online article from Searcher from back in 2002. It’s a bit painful to read due to its format but hey, at least it’s still around.

http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/mar02/kenney.htm

One possible takeaway for me from reading this piece is that the presence or absence of a freelance writer’s article in the ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times does not necessarily prove that the digitized version is faithful to the original, since it’s possible that such an author might have agreed to redistribution rights. A different freelance author who didn’t though, will likely not have an article present in the digitized version since, as the above article notes:

“…failure to delete freelancer contributions after the holding in Tasini may allow freelancers to argue that publishers are knowingly disregarding the law and are liable for enhanced damages for willful infringement (up to $150,000 or $300,000 per article, depending on when an article was published and registered).”

Again, someone who’s better informed or who has sources, please correct me. It’s an important issue in my own mind since my library was one of those who chose to discard its extensive backfile of microfilm for the NYT when it purchased ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (before my time), because of what I think was an erroneous belief that there was complete coverage. It could be argued that this isn’t an enormous loss, regardless, and it was worthwhile to do for other reasons.

Steve

From: Steve Oberg <steve.oberg at wheaton.edu>
Date: Monday, December 11, 2017 at 4:30 PM
To: eril-l <eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>
Subject: Re: [Eril-l] New York Times historical newspapers (PQ) vs Microfilm

Nikki and others,

This is a situation that cries out for more clarity, that’s for sure. I genuinely wish to know the answer – this is not mean to be argumentative at all. Here’s my understanding:

The original microfilm version of the NYT faithfully reproduced the original, yet. That microfilm formed the basis for creating the digital version, also yes. But my understanding was that after the Tasini case, in the digital version, articles and other materials that were problematic from a copyright perspective were removed. Also, microfilm produced subsequent to that case no longer faithfully reproduced the original in its entirety – in other words, stuff was excluded that was problematic.

Those libraries that had microfilm holdings that were produced prior to the Tasini case were “safe” in that they still held material that faithfully reproduced the original.

Again, that’s been my understanding for a very long time, and if that’s incorrect, or there are important missing details, I’m glad to be corrected. I did some quick searching around for sources for either your understanding or mine, and I didn’t come up with anything definite just yet, so I remain curious.

Steve

From: Eril-l <eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org> on behalf of Nikki DeMoville <ndemovil at calpoly.edu>
Date: Monday, December 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM
To: eril-l <eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>
Subject: Re: [Eril-l] New York Times historical newspapers (PQ) vs Microfilm

Hi all,

I think the presence/absence of freelance articles, ads, etc. is down to the presentation in the database (and how the source was licensed).  In the case of PQ's NYT Historical database, they've actually reproduced the original microfilmed pages in their entirety.  This gets around the Tasini case because the articles aren't removed from the context of the collective work and also happily means that ads, letters, and even features like the crossword are present.  Full text databases, including some of PQ's other newspaper databases, that do not feature a full "page view" PDF and just have the text of the article, are the ones to be careful about when withdrawing print/film.

As always, do your homework and check carefully.  I just did a search in our PQ NYT Historical and found an article by Jonathan Tasini himself, complete with an ad for the Helmsley Palace (comparing it to the Taj Mahal--how delightful).

Nikki
--
Nikki DeMoville
Coordinator - Electronic Resources, Acquisitions, and Resource Sharing
Robert E. Kennedy Library
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, California

Direct 805-756-5780
Fax 805-756-7711
ndemovil at calpoly.edu<mailto:ndemovil at calpoly.edu>

On 12/11/2017 12:04 PM, Steve Oberg wrote:
Kristin,

Yes, indeed there are differences. As I understand it this is due to the Tasini case, for one thing. So those libraries that threw away their microform holdings in favor of ProQuest Historical Newspapers access are in for a bit of a surprise.

Steve

Steve Oberg
Assistant Professor and Group Leader for Resource Description and Digital Initiatives
Buswell Library, Wheaton College (IL)
+1 (630) 752-5852

President, NASIG<http://www.nasig.org/>
[cid:image001.png at 01D372A4.959E9F40]

From: Eril-l <eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org><mailto:eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org> on behalf of Kristin Rogers <kerogers at olemiss.edu><mailto:kerogers at olemiss.edu>
Date: Monday, December 11, 2017 at 1:58 PM
To: eril-l <eril-l at lists.eril-l.org><mailto:eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>
Subject: [Eril-l] New York Times historical newspapers (PQ) vs Microfilm

Hi!

We have recently purchased the New York Times perpetual access through ProQuest Historical Newspapers.  Has anyone experienced redacted articles, articles, pictures etc. that were not available on the page or issue view?  Are there ads, articles, pictures in the microfilm that are not in the online version.

Thank you!

Kristin

Kristin Rogers
Electronic Resources & Discovery Librarian
Assistant Professor
The University of Mississippi
JD Williams Library
50 Galtney Lott Plz
P.O. Box 1848
University, MS 38677-1848
U.S.A.
O: +1-662-915-3409 | F: +1-662-915-6744
kerogers at olemiss.edu<mailto:kerogers at olemiss.edu> | www.olemiss.edu<http://www.olemiss.edu/>

_______________________________________________

Eril-l mailing list

Eril-l at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:Eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>

http://lists.eril-l.org/listinfo.cgi/eril-l-eril-l.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.eril-l.org/pipermail/eril-l-eril-l.org/attachments/20171211/db4d6315/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17513 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.eril-l.org/pipermail/eril-l-eril-l.org/attachments/20171211/db4d6315/attachment.png>