Copyright and attribution has already been a discussion point for the Farmer project, especially with regards to the use of video material. As we’ve discussed with Special Collections, not all of the Farmer-relevant video material they have is one that they have clear copyrights on to ensure the display of these materials. When choosing which video materials to display, we were careful to look out for the ones the library had confirmed full rights to.
With regards to our own material, I think, that we’re focusing more on digitizing, displaying, and curating others’ materials, ones we’re not modifying enough for them to qualify as our intellectual property in the first place. For original materials, I think the Attribution license condition is the one that makes the most sense, and I’m not sure about the relevance of the others to our project. I think that for this, we’d have to look more into the way the library’s own copyrights function and what licensing agreements they entail.
I looked at the Wikipedia pages for St. Petersburg, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and Colonial Williamsburg. The former was edited significantly more often than the latter two, which makes sense as it is the one of these that has the greatest potential number of interested parties. Changes included stylistic questions such as changing ‘4th’ to ‘fourth’, organizational questions such as headers, updates and additions to citations, and minor clarifications in wording. In the case of references, I noted the phenomenon of correcting ‘http’ to ‘https’ in URLs. This is a question of digital preservation that I feel illustrates a relevant topic in our class: the ways we direct our audiences online are likely to require updating, often due to forces outside of our control.
