Print

Print


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)
>