Thanks, Brenda, and thanks to all who replied.
I'm mulling over what to do next..
Malcolm

*******

On 10/24/2012 8:25 AM, Nelson-Strauss, Brenda wrote:
> According to Peter Hirtle's copyright chart (http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm), works published between 1978 to 1 March 1989 in the U.S. without notice and without subsequent registration within 5 years are also in the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities.
>
> Brenda Nelson-Strauss
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Malcolm Rockwell
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Record Research Scans
>
> 12/31/77 would take us up to RR issue #150 (October 1977). The final issue was RR 253/254 (January 1995), which leaves us only 18 years of non-PD issues.
> Yes, many of Lenny's pasteups are crooked - I straightened as best I could after scanning. All my page-by-page scans are as jpgs but putting them into Adobe pdf format wouldn't be a problem. I'll have to experiment to see if the OCR will work on the odd, small type sizes and/or the off-center pasteups.
> Malcolm
>
> *******
>
> On 10/24/2012 7:04 AM, Sam Brylawski wrote:
>> My understanding is that any work (other than a sound recording!)
>> published in the U.S.before 1/1/1978 without a copyright notice is
>> public domain. Period. After 1/1/1978, it's a different story. If
>> Malcolm is correct about no notices, and I'm confident that he is, all
>> those earlier issues are PD. Addressing a part of the initial
>> question, the paid-for version of Adobe has an OCR tool built-in. How
>> it would deal with the minuscule type and crooked paste-ups of RR is
>> another story.
>>
>> Sam Brylawski
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Malcolm Rockwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I have all the primary Record Research issues scanned and many of the
>>> bulletins, as well as many of the the Blues Research and the
>>> Americana series. I also worked up an index for the primary issues.
>>> I had worked out a deal with Lenny's niece (sitting in for her mom
>>> who may have passed by now) but then copyright questions arose and I
>>> shelved the project. I still have all the digital files, though.
>>> If anyone can establish with any finality who owned RR I would
>>> happily finish the project and distribute it or release it to someone who will.
>>> There is the question of a possible co-owner and/or long time
>>> collaborator that could be a major copyright problem, even for
>>> releasing privately for a low price.
>>> BTW, there are no copyright notices anywhere in the entire magazine
>>> run but I'm told that is meaningless. I really do not want to end up
>>> in court and do not have the money to get lawyers involved in any of this!
>>> "Publish and be damned" is fine for one's own material; not so good
>>> for someone else's stuff.
>>> Regards,
>>> Malcolm Rockwell
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/24/2012 3:12 AM, Mason Vander Lugt wrote:
>>>> Hi ARSC,
>>>>
>>>> I know some of you were involved in the writing and publication of
>>>> Record Research Magazine. Can any of you tell me decisively whether
>>>> anyone would contest the free distribution of PDF scans of the
>>>> magazine? I emailed the representative of Spivey Records (my best
>>>> guess for a 'rightsholder'), but got no response. I've been
>>>> collecting them when I can find them, and now have about half of the full run scanned (less the sales lists).
>>>>
>>>> Does anybody have any of the issues listed below that they would be
>>>> willing to lend, give or sell to me? I intend to put them up for
>>>> free download when I'm finished.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, I think they would be much more useful if the text was
>>>> searchable.
>>>> Can anyone recommend a good (free?) OCR service that can accept PDF files?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance for any help or advice, Mason Vander Lugt Still
>>>> needed:
>>>>
>>>> 1-42, except 17, 19-20, 22-24, 27
>>>> 51/52
>>>> 112-220 except 189/190, 201/202
>>>>
>>>> (If my math seems fuzzy to you, it's because they were published in
>>>> double-issues after 112)
>>>>