Diane and Julie have hit just about all the salient points. I would only like to emphasize the point about "commercial" vs. "non-commercial" being in the eye of the beholder. This is a classic problem. Right now, I am dealing with a situation in which scholars who were given special permission to photograph certain ancient manuscripts in my museum's collection with special equipment (i.e. to create non-standard photographs to aid in decipherment) -- on condition that they were for research purposes only. Recently it was brought to our attention that the images have been sold to a a CD-ROM database -- a very expensive product. Commercial, in other words. Beyond the obvious breach of trust, there is the breach of good will: the time and effort our staff devoted to accomodating the photography work. And of course the untenable situation in which we, the institution which secures, preserves, cares for and provides access to these manuscripts, earns not a penny towards these expenses from the production and sale of these commercial products.
I spend considerable time and effort dealing with this and similar cases, when that time and effort could be going towards creating good ways of making quality images securely available to scholars. And to commercial users, if properly licensed and paid for -- that's how we'll survive financially, and maintain image sources of relevance to scholars and non-scholars alike. At 09:56 1999-10-13 -0500, you wrote: >Patrick, > >You raise interesting issues that indeed affect the members of this list. >My first reaction to the instance you cite was to your phrase "obviously >noncommercial value". This raises a red flag because what is deemed >commercially valuable varies greatly upon who is looking for what and in >what context. You feel the images of papyrii and cuneiform tablets have no >commercial value; however, I recall seeing plenty of ads that use images of >papyrii or cuneiform tablets to sell a product (i.e., a commercial use) -- >usually ads trying to make a point about a computer, a palm pilot, >expensive pens, etc.). Creators of these ads obviously think these images >are important in helping make their point (i.e., they have "value" for >their purposes) and (hopefully) pay fees to license these images for use in >their ad campaigns. > >My guess here is that museums and other owners of objects are concerned >that scholarly educational use by those outside the museum often can't be >controlled, and there is risk that the images will fall out of this >context somewhere along the "sharing" chain and be used, without >permission, in a commercial sphere that yields some money for some entity >other than the museum or collection repository. This happens frequently >enough to make museums wary -- I'm sure every museum can tell you it's >"war story", and the war stories are increasing exponentially when these >images/texts are being shared in digital form, especially over networks. > >Copyright is another underlying issue. Again in the instance you cite, the >creator of the papyrii (the writer?) rights expired long ago years ago >(even under the terms of US copyright law -- joke, joke). But how about >the photographer who took the photo of the tablets or papyrii? This is a >very hot topic now between those who argue that a great deal of creativity >goes into the making/taking of a photograph (and thus the photographer >should have copyrights to his/her photographic creation) versus those who >feel object photography is an attempt to faithfully render a copy, and is >therefore is on par with a photocopy (which is not considered >copyrightable). Even if the photographer is a scholar who took the image >for her own research use (with the permission of the museum) and doesn't >care about her own rights in the image, she needs to consider the >possibility that the image will "travel" into a context of use that it was >not intended for (i.e., commercial). Museums consider this all the time, >which is why they put restrictions on use of personal photographs of >objects in their holdings. > >Museums and other cultural repositories are keenly aware of these issues >and are searching for solutions that can be fair to all parties. The >subject is the topic of many conference sessions, papers, and books in the >museum profession. This year's MCN conference will have one such session >entitled, "Life After Bridgeman? The Bridgeman vs. Corel Case and the >Future of Museum Images", which will discuss a recent court decision >regarding the use of images of objects that are in the public domain. >Also, the American Association of Museums is publishing a book for museum >professionals (due out in late 1999) called a "Museum Guide to Copyright >and Trademark" which discusses the legal and ethical issues in this area. >I know the College Art Association is looking at these issues from the >scholar's point of view, as is the Visual Resources Association, an >organization dedicated to furthering research and education for >professionals involved in managing and caring for image collections. Many >member of these organizations are on this list, and I hope they will >respond to your message (this list needs some activity!) > >Regards, > >Diane > >Diane M. Zorich >Museum Information Management Consultant >113 Gallup Road >Princeton, NJ 08540 >Voice# (609) 252-1606 >Fax# (609) 252-1607 >Email: [email protected] > > > >>Greetings, >> >>I saw the announcement concerning the MCN conference (October 27-30, >>1999: Philadelphia) on the Humanist list. I attended a conference of >>scholars working in Ancient Near Eastern studies this past weekend in >>Chicago and the general sentiment was that most scholars cannot make >>useful images of texts and artifacts freely available due to >>restrictions from museums and other repositories. Most of the texts in >>question would be held on cuneiform tablets or papyri and could hardly >>be considered to be of any commercial value for advertising (as opposed >>to photos of a famous person). >> >>Since your organization obviously supports the use of technology by >>museums I may be directing my question to the wrong group but I am >>curious what reasons (if anyone knows) curators use to justify to >>themselves (if no one else) prohibitions on freely distributing >>scholarly quality photos of obviously non-commercial materials. I would >>also appreciate any insight list members can give on the question of how >>to go about changing policies that restrict such reproductions. >> >>Patrick >> >>-- >>Patrick Durusau >>Information Technology Services >>Scholars Press >>[email protected] >>Manager, ITS > > > > > > amalyah keshet head of visual resources, the israel museum, jerusalem board of directors, the museum computer network chair, mcn intellectual property special interest group [email protected]
