This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Websites Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Low-importance). Libraries Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

New Template:OL author. -- Kolja21 ( talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Can inline references from OpenLibrary be accepted as evidence that a publisher existed? Or should an article cite the books of the publisher instead?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I added in references to everyone's name at least once. It's really difficult ot know who's who without that. Hawaiisunfun ( talk) 04:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• The Internet Archive’s Open Library is violating authors’ copyrights very relevant to this article. Igottheconch ( talk) 21:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Might be relevant if discussed in a few WP:RS. Same blogger noted on 2017/12/19: "I still haven’t seen any mention of this on news sites"" Deleted. See WP:SELFPUBLISH -- Paulscrawl ( talk) 17:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I cannot confirm the given date from the cited sources. Aaron Swartz' weblog has an announcement from June 16, 2007, though. Where does that date come from?-- Reseletti ( talk) 12:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Wayback Machine has a capture of demo.openlibrary.org from June 26, 2007. Russian Wikipedia gives 2005 without naming a source.-- Reseletti ( talk) 12:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Since he is the Open Library Program Lead, right under Aaron Swartz in the hierarchy on https://openlibrary.org/about/people.en, more should be said about him either here or as a new page. What are some proposals for moving forward? More info on the Open Library page, a new page, or not to add more info anymore? Hawaiisunfun ( talk) 04:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Maybe adding them in as key figures in the information box of the Open Library page could help out too.
Hawaiisunfun (
talk) 05:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
reply

The Copyright violation accusations section contains this sentence:

Individual authors reported that Open Library had ignored multiple DMCA takedown notices until after they made a fuss on the Internet Archive blog. ^[1]

• The phrase "after they made a fuss" seems either non-neutral or unencyclopedic.

• The source is a blog post by writer Victoria Strauss "for Writer Beware", which is a writers' group Strauss is the co-founder of. It's probably unreliable because of WP:RSSELF.

Detýnn ( talk) 06:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I have been a member/subscriber for some time, but I have never been able to borrow a book. Maybe this is because I am in a "developing country." Is there any discussion of whether OL works outside of, say the U.S. and India? 79.134.37.83 ( talk) 06:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply

There is at least one site claiming to be Open Library that is actually a scam, operating out of (Redacted), and instead 'selling' subscriptions to sportiveguide.com, which after a 1 day trial turn into about a $60/year annual subscription. Not sure how best to include this in the wiki entry, or at all, but wanted to at least add it here, for folks who might check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.188.190 ( talk) 00:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

The "accusations" are demonstrable, and not debated: the assertion that what the fake "library" is doing falls under "fair use" is. The fake "library" is violating basic, fundamental copyright law as well as international copyright treaties. "Open Library" is a piracy website: this is demonstrable, and has been found to be true. Quoting The Authors Guild https://twitter.com/AuthorsGuild/status/1640413426336800769

The court’s ruling vindicates six years of our advocacy against Open Library’s illegal scanning and distribution of books, finding the Internet Archive’s “fair use” defense to be entirely without merit.

In my opinion, it is not possible that the people at "Open Library" believed what they were and are doing falls under "fair use:" the assertion is prima facie not true and an insult to the court.

Libraries pay content creators; "Open Library" does not pay content creators. what they have done and are doing is prima facie criminal, and the perpetrators should be indited; charged; arrested; allowed a jury trial or summary judgement; and if found guilty, spend a few years in prison.

This is not a First Amendment issue; this is not a library issue; this is a criminal issue.

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/91795-hachette-v-internet-archive-all-our-coverage.html Desertphile ( talk) 13:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply

cool story 73.47.149.91 ( talk) 17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply