[MCN-L] Job Opening: DAMS Manager - NYC
The Jewish Museum, New York, is looking for a Digital Asset Management (DAM) Manager. http://thejewishmuseum.org/careers/position-information/digital-asset-manage ment-dam-manager The museum is on Museum Mile on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Its focus is on art, especially contemporary art, and it possesses a celebrated collection of art and artifacts reflecting global Jewish identity and tradition from ancient times to the present day. It is recognized around the world for the quality of its collection, exhibitions and scholarship. Send resume with cover letter and salary requirements to: Director of Human Resources The Jewish Museum 1109 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10128 The Jewish Museum is an Equal Opportunity Employer. ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l@mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://mcn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://www.mail-archive.com/mcn-l@mcn.edu/
Re: [MCN-L] FW: CAA Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for the Visual Arts
The Museums section of the guideline is, in my opinion, the weakest part. It's probably due to the fact that CAA represents museums, but primarily by representing the individual scholars. A revision will be needed. For now, this is a good first step, as it reaches a much broader audience and constituencies than the AAMD guideline. Regards, Eve Sinaiko NYC -Original Message- From: Ben Rubinstein benr...@cogapp.com Sent: Feb 10, 2015 2:14 PM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv mcn-l@mcn.edu Subject: Re: [MCN-L] FW: CAA Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for the Visual Arts Thanks Diane (and Melissa) for bringing this to the list's attention. I note with a sigh that while the Code says (p12) Museums... - Downloadable images made available online should be suitable in size for full-screen projection or display on a personal computer or mobile device, but generally not larger. The associated FAQ at http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/fair-use/best-practices-fair-use-faq.pdf recommends (p3) http://aamd.org/sites/default/files/document/Thumbnail%20Images%20Policy.pdf which it says states conclusions that are fully consistent with the Code. The AAMD policy (from 2011) settled on 250 x 300 pixels as the defensible size for an image which (apart from being an incredibly unhelpful way to state max dimensions) is a long way from suitable in size for full-screen projection or display on a personal computer or mobile device. So we're still a long way from clarity! - Ben On 09/02/2015 16:54, Diane Zorich wrote: FYI includes a section for museums. From: Christine L. Sundt csu...@mindspring.com Reply-To: Visual Resources Association vr...@listserv.uark.edu Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 11:08 AM To: vr...@listserv.uark.edu Subject: CAA Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for the Visual Arts The College Art Association (CAA)'s Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for the Visual Arts has been published and is available for download online: http://www.collegeart.org/fair-use/. Printed copies will be distributed during CAA's annual conference, this week at the New York Hilton. For more information about this publication please visit http://www.collegeart.org/news/2015/02/09/caa-announces-publication-of-code- of-best-practices-in-fair-use-for-the-visual-arts/ Christine L. Sundt ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l@mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://mcn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://www.mail-archive.com/mcn-l@mcn.edu/ ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l@mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://mcn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://www.mail-archive.com/mcn-l@mcn.edu/
[MCN-L] Permissions
I think it's worth noting for the record that Deb Wythe and the Brooklyn Museum began making public domain images available way before other US museums, and with fewer restrictions. Brooklyn (and to some extent the Met) have been early in moving toward open, free access to all p.d. images. To do so, Brooklyn has had to mount a huge project to research the copyright status of every work. As Peter Hirtle's chart tells us, determining whether a work is p.d. or not is not always a cut-and-dried thing. That said, the next stage of this process is looming: to make all p.d. images available for all uses--including highly commercial ones--without trying to monetize the process. Deb, the one bone I would pick with you is on the question of how difficult or onerous the paperwork and research are for end-users. The process is out-of-control burdensome, with as many as 3 or 4 different stakeholders all claiming authority to grant or withhold access. In NYC, if one wants to get a permit to do work on one's building, the process is so entangled, and so many people need to be bribed, that it has given rise to a career known as an expediter. Likewise, museums, publishers, and individual authors are having to hire rights-clearance professionals just to get access to pictures that are freely found everywhere on the Internet. And lastly, the Internet is full of those pictures, but by and large the quality is terrible. The museums who are the stewards of art and who profess to care most about the artworks have taken great care to keep their high-res, large-size, color-corrected scans as unavailable as possible. Instead, the bad ones--the cheap scans from books, the old outdated faded copies--are what the public (and the arts community) has access to. I cannot fathom how this can be said to meet museum mission, or serve art well. In a nutshell: the advent of the Internet changed the game, and museums are now, step by step, coming to terms with that. Regards, Eve Sinaiko NYC
[MCN-L] LA contract photographer
Here are three who were recommended to me by museum folks (Getty, Norton Simon, and MOMA). I have not used them myself (ended up not needing the work done). Regards, Eve Sinaiko The Jewish Museum NYC Douglas Parker FranSalomonDMPS at aol.com (Douglas Parker?s wife) 323-660-6145 (business) 213-706-8102 (mobile) 818-507-4747 (fax) Susan Einstein seinstein at sbcglobal.net Peter Lynde plynde at gmail.com -Original Message- From: Images Images at vanartgallery.bc.ca Sent: Nov 21, 2012 1:17 PM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: [MCN-L] LA contract photographer Does anyone in the LA area have any fine art photographer recommendations? We're looking for someone to shoot a small three-dimensional mask/frontlet in a private collection. I'd be grateful for any leads. with thanks, Danielle Vancouver Art Gallery ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://mcn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
[MCN-L] Small libraries and e-pubs
At the Jewish Museum we have a small curatorial library and limited resources for maintaining it. (To give you a sense of current resources: our little library still uses a card catalogue. It is for staff use only.) We're beginning to acquire publications that are digital-only--mostly journal subscriptions, but also, now, ebooks. We're thinking through the best way to download and preserve ebooks--where should they live on the server, how should they be catalogued, how we can best make a single download available to our curatorial staff, and of course what protocols we should be putting in place for data migration. Any suggestions, recommendations, places we should look would be very helpful. (I'm also going to ask the ARLIS listserve about this.) Many thanks. Eve Sinaiko Director of Publications The Jewish Museum 1109 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10128 Phone: (212) 423-3303 Fax: (212) 423-3232 esinaiko at thejm.org
[MCN-L] Digital archiving policy
Here at the Jewish Museum, we're updating our document retention and archiving policy, which currently only covers paper documents. We're looking for good models of policies for digital content archiving. If you like the policy of your museum, would you be willing to share it? Apologies if this has been asked before. Among our questions are: Should we have separate policies for curatorial, education, admin, etc. or one global policy? Does a good policy include preserving email, or is that not usual? What is a good policy for archiving image files where we may not own the (c)? Eve Sinaiko Director of Publications The Jewish Museum 1109 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10128 Phone: (212) 423-3303 Fax: (212) 423-3232
[MCN-L] Basic rule of copyright term in the US
Maybe it would be useful to repeat the most simplified version of current US copyright term. I have this taped to my computer. Works created by an individual: Date of death + 70 years Works copyrighted by a corporation: Date of publication + 95 years or date of creation + 120 years. We should keep in mind that 99.9% of uses fall within this rule--and that as a practical matter it holds for international publication too. One can do a reasonable assessment of those occasional instances that might reasonably be thought to be exceptional or on the borderline, and research their rights status with care. In my view, a postcard published around 1900 doesn't fall under that rubric--neither the original image nor any marginal new creative content that might conceivably inhere in the crinkly edges. Of course the above Short Version sets aside exceptions for certain US works created between 1923 and 1978; it sets aside rare exceptions in which old peculiarities of superseded laws have been exploited to extend copyright in highly esoteric individual cases; and it sets aside the exotic complexities of publishing internationally in nations that have not signed the Geneva Convention. But on the whole it works; it's reliable; it's broadly accepted. We're approaching the New Year. Don't forget to drink a toast on Jan. 1 to welcome to the public domain F. Scott Fitzgerald, Paul Klee, Tina Modotti, Edouard Vuillard, Marcus Garvey, Walter Benjamin, Nathanael West, and Leon Trotsky. Cheers, Eve Sinaiko NYC
[MCN-L] Using old postcards to create new souvenirs: copyright?
Eve Sinaiko wrote: One cannot buy the rights to a work by buying the work (which is why MOMA doesn't own the copyrights to Matisse's paintings, for example). Peter writes: What Eve says is correct for published works, but the question of Matisse paintings purchased by MoMA is theoretically more problematic. Remember the Pushman Doctrine, which established that the transfer of unpublished works by an artist in New York prior to 1966 transferred to the purchaser the copyright in those works unless the copyright in the works was expressly reserved by the artist. It is quite likely that MoMA acquired the copyright in some of the artworks it purchased prior to 1966, when the Pushman Doctrine was reversed by the state legislature. It is possible that the common law of other states might have kept the Pushman Doctrine in place in those states until 1978, when unpublished art work was first protected by Federal copyright. Whether anyone wants to fight with artists and their estates over copyright is another matter. Very true! Still, I this rare situation doesn't apply to the example I was addressing: the all-too-common instance of someone acquiring a work and then improperly (indeed, illegally) asserting ownership of its copyright when copyright has expired. This is a version of what Judge Posner calls copyright misuse; others call it copyright abuse. My own name for it is theft from the public domain. The example Peter explores is mostly a matter between the Matisse estate and MOMA; it needn't worry users of images too much, as long as we know that Matisse remains in copyright until 2024 and that, as a general rule, we should seek permission from his estate, not the museum. Beyond that we have to rely on the estate to 'fess up honestly if it happens to have assigned or sold or otherwise lost the rights to an individual work. If we have reason to doubt the probity of a rights holder of record; this sometimes happens when two children of an artist are heirs of different clusters of his or her work, for example. It's difficult for publishers and museums find a balance between the specifics of the law and general, reliable rules that provide clarity and security. Reliable rules of thumb are essential to running a business practically; by definition they do not encompass all possible exceptions. Few of us (individuals or institutions) have the time or money for deep research into the copyright status of individual works (in most instances). Most museums don't even have counsel on retainer, much less on staff. So until recently the in-house rules at presses and museums usually erred on the side of a conservative, better-safe-than-sorry interpretation of copyright law. But this has led to an immense amount of rights clearance (and fees! and restrictive terms of use!) for works that in fact have no copyright (such as a postcard from 1895) and an enormous increase in paperwork for everyone. To be sure, US copyright law is full of minute complexities: some published works have lost their copyright well before the Death + 70 years expiry date because a rights holder failed to reregister copyright or omitted a notice. Other works that should have entered the public domain by now may have an extended term because of technicalities such as the one Peter points to above (because a corporate copyright generally has a longer term than that of an individual--as in the case of Harvard owning rights to some Dickinson poems). Nevertheless, we do need general rules of thumb and they need to be sensible and reliable in most cases. To put the matter bluntly: in my experience illegal assertion of copyright is *far* more common than instances of unintentional infringement caused by a rare exception to the general rules of copyright term (such as incorrectly assuming that all of Dickinson's poems are in the public domain). Unfortunately, it's easier for Harvard to sue for infringement than it is for the public domain to sue for theft. No huge settlements attach to aggressively pushing back against improper copyright assertions. I sometimes think the public domain should incorporate so as to improve its legal standing. (OK, that last bit was a joke.) Regards, Eve Sinaiko NYC
[MCN-L] IP SIG - orphan works question
Amalyah Keshet I agree entirely with Peter, who has answered this question far more elegantly than I could. We never think twice about using the phrase (c) the artist as a default, if that's the only information or best guess we have, or if the artist or copyright owner doesn't answer our enquiries. Amalyah (and others): When you put the phrase (c) the artist on an artwork image, without having confirmed that the artist did indeed retain the copyright, do you note (as Peter suggests) that this is a presumed copyright? In publishing, the practice in such instances is usually to be silent, rather than commit to print a copyright assertion that may be erroneous. I like the idea of publishing a presumed or probable copyright. It gives the reader some guidance without absolutely confirming what may not be correct. I'm thinking here of the confusions that arise when an artist's estate has more than one heir, and with the copyright for a particular work being gifted or assigned. The latter didn't happen too often in the past, but it did arise occasionally and seems to be getting more common. In print publishing, it has usually been the practice not to add a (c) the artist notice unless the artist or estate has requested one in writing. I think publishers would be very leery of adding copyright notices unless a rights holder told them to do so, but in omitting that information, they are probably contributing to the general confusion. I know of no practical guidelines for publishers on this... Regards, Eve Sinaiko New York
[MCN-L] IP SIG: Is the Google Phone an Unauthorized Replicant?
Bloggers read too much science fiction, and seem to love conspiracy theories. Nexus as an English word is several centuries old, and well-chosen for a do-everything cell phone. There seems to be no evidence of any correlation between Dick's work and the putative Google offering, aside from the use of English. Bill Even if it were, Philip Dick's family would be out of luck. Names can't be copyrighted, only trademarked. A fictional character or concept in a book can't be trademarked (at least, not easily). So if Google wants to name its most popular phone apps Lolita, Ridley, and Spock, there's nothing to stop them. Regards, Eve Sinaiko NYC
[MCN-L] FW: NYCBA program on Orphan Works, Tuesday, October 20 6-8pm
Here?s an upcoming panel on orphan works, of possible interest to list members in the New York area. Please forward to other lists. Regards, Eve Sinaiko Lost and Found: A Practical Look at Orphan Works On Tuesday, October 20th, from 6-8pm, the Art Law Committee and the Copyright and Literary Property Law Committees of the New York City Bar Association, in conjunction with Columbia Law School?s Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts, will present Lost and Found: A Practical Look at Orphan Works. Please join us in the Association Meeting Hall at 42 W. 44th Street for a discussion of the latest proposals for use of orphan works, and particularly, orphan images. Speakers: Brendan M. Connell, Jr., Director and Counsel for Administration, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation Frederic Haber, Vice President and General Counsel, Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Eugene H. Mopsik, Executive Director, American Society of Media Photographers Maria Pallante, Associate Register for Policy International Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office Charles Wright, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Legal and Business Affairs, AE Television Networks Moderator: June M. Besek, Executive Director, Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts, Columbia Law School The program is free and open to all. More information can be found in the attached flyer. Please register at http://www.nycbar.org/EventsCalendar/show_event.php?eventid=1222 http://www.nycbar.org/EventsCalendar/show_event.php?eventid=1222. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 10-20-09 Lost and Found--A Practical Look at Orphan Works - Flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 325029 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://mcn.edu/pipermail/mcn-l/attachments/20091007/dd0de4ba/attachment.pdf
[MCN-L] rights question
the original full-size image, the less exact is the replicated viewing experience?i.e., at some point viewers can no longer discern many of the fine details that were once visible in the full-size image. On the other hand, thumbnails are not ?cropped? in any way, and if few or no important details have been lost, they do convey the full expression?they achieve pretty much the same effect?as the original full-size images. Merely because Google?s thumbnails are not cropped does not necessarily make them exact copies of P10?s images, but the record currently before the Court does suggest that the thumbnails here closely approximate a key function of P10?s full-size originals. and [Footnote 13]: For example, a typical full-size image might be 1024 pixels wide by 768 pixels high, for a total of 786,432 pixels worth of data. A typical thumbnail might be 150 pixels wide by 112 pixels high, for a total of only 16,800 pixels. This represents an information loss of 97.9% between the full-size image and the thumbnail. Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersly (2006) http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/448/448.F3d.605.html: This conclusion is strengthened by the manner in which DK displayed the images. First, DK significantly reduced the size of the reproductions. See Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 818-20 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding online search engine's use of thumbnail-sized images to be highly transformative). While the small size is sufficient to permit readers to recognize the historical significance of the posters, it is inadequate to offer more than a glimpse of their expressive value. In short, DK used the minimal image size necessary to accomplish its transformative purpose. Setting aside fair use, I've noticed that in recent years some rights holders are comfortable giving permission for an online digital image, even a large one, if it is low resolution, and will grant permission for a 70 dpi scan to be used but not a zoomable high-res scan. Though that doesn't have any direct bearing on a fair use position, it seems to be a trend. The argument is that a high-res scan can be pirated and used for commercial purposes (e.g., making posters), but a low-res scan can't be reused so easily. (Down the line I think that view will be tested because high-res zoomable scans are the future of art education and will be needed online.) As Will says, most of this is about risk assessment, so each institution should look at these trends and establish some baselines: smaller images are usually safer; images with inactive or unknown rights holders may be safer; takedowns may be necessary, leaving holes in online content, etc. Regards, Eve Sinaiko
[MCN-L] rights question
for what constitutes a sufficient search for a rights holder and put in place a program to ensure that staff understand it; ~Develop a protocol for rights search documentation and document retention; ~Determine its comfort zone with respect to use of works that fall into a gray area such as OWs; ~Decide whether its own internal policy with respect to the use of such works is also going to be its policy when others outside the institution make use of a work whose rights are controlled or administered by the institution; ~Assess the status of the works you want to use. If the rights owner is known to be active in asserting rights but for some reason has not been answering your request letters, you should not consider that work to be in limbo; ~Don't be guided by your own convenience: your policy should not be driven by a desire to avoid paying legitimate rights fees, or a desire to publish fast, without waiting for a slow responder to write back (perhaps from a distant country or an understaffed museum), or a desire to avoid masses of rights-clearance paperwork. In these notes, I don't mean to encourage users not to clear rights. I'm only suggesting ways to address the small group of works that are truly in limbo. Regards, Eve Sinaiko
[MCN-L] RE: RE: Re image 'theft'
Further to the discussion of image licensing and CC, the flip side of it is the Plus Coalition, which has presented at MCN I think several times. I imagine most of you have seen this recent announcement from PLUS: http://www2.adbase.com/view/?c=30937677i=3280 I'd be interested in the range of views about this initiative from the museum and image user communities. Regards, Eve Sinaiko Director of Publications College Art Association
[MCN-L] FW: photography, digitization, and a color/grey card?
Catching up very late: From Mark Paradis: My objection to color bars when included at the capture/scanning stage is that any global changes made in image editing software will also extend to the color reference as well. Send the file to printing and the printers will correct the scale back to its know color and your original will share this bias. This is a very good point. The designer or whomever corrects a digital file should provide the printer with either a match print or a set of notes about the corrections that have been made. First, calibration, calibration, calibration of all devices used in the reproduction process. This is now an old mantra to most image creators today but it cannot be stressed enough. We have a weekly regimen of systematic calibration of cameras and monitors to ensure consistency on these variables. I think this is an excellent rule for museums. Of course, images of artworks come from a million sources. Where calibration has been careful, notes to that effect attached to (embedded in?) the digital file would certainly be more useful than a grayscale or color bar. Many museums (not to mention other image sources) do not have best-quality tools or skills. Absent those, a guide to the printer is needed. Third step, create your own unbiased reference scale. Yup, I said it, a homemade solution. Our approach was to create a digitally perfect reference grey scale in Photoshop. We created a 21 step, digitally created grey scale in Photoshop in .15 step increments just like the Kodak ones are supposed to be. Beginning at values of 0,0,0 for purest digital black on up to 255,255,255 for maximum white. With this technique each step of the scale is measurable and digitally accurate for today and evermore. Once an image capture is completed by the photographer (in their calibrated work environment), the digital scale is then added post-capture thus anchoring the original look to a perfect scale. This is brilliant. Have you gotten feedback from printers? Are they finding it useful? Are you seeing better quality in printed materials? I'd love to hear how it's working. Regards, Eve Sinaiko Director of Publications College Art Association
[MCN-L] photography, digitization, and a color/grey card?
With apologies to Eve, please consider the following: Regarding the second part of her email; If your budget allows you to use a good commercial printer who has printed art publications before, you will have exceptional results from an entirely digital workflow. True, we rarely see press-proofs any more, but that is due to the fact that color seps and printers have been able to produce very accurate guide proofs from newer generation studio printers. All I can say is that this puts the success of the color printing entirely in the hands of a pressman who may or may not be paying attention. It removes all hope of the editor and designer (the people with real expertise and who really care about the color accuracy) having any opportunity to intervene and improve color. We cannot require a printer to improve color if we cannot point to anything to show that the color is less than accurate. If museums are comfortable with this, then they should by all means remove the color bar and grayscale. But the publishers will then be in an excellent position to say, Sorry, we printed what we were given. In my experience, museums expect more attention to color quality on the part of publishers. Absent a grayscale and color bar, our hands are tied. Also, of course, not all publishers work with the top printers, nor should museums expect that optimum printing conditions will be the norm. For example, most printers who know color printing well are working for the ad industry, where color standards are very different (e.g., maximum color saturation is desirable). There are almost no printers left who specialize in art printing-and they are mostly in Italy and Japan, which are beyond the budgets of most art publishers today. Lastly, newer generation studio printers are great-I hope they get installed soon. But in the meantime we are in a crucial transition period in which many (most) publishers and printers are not working with the latest equipment. I daresay smaller publishers will be in that position for a long time to come. Capture software as well as CMYK printing is moving forward very quickly and at this point has surpassed film, allowing us to control color and ink densities like never before. Image quality control is far more ?in front of the curtain? now as we all see the images immediately at every point of the workflow. In some cases your printer may provide on-line services, allowing you to soft proof images and make edits on the fly (all before you go on press for quality control.) I don't dispute this, and I welcome it. Indeed, color printing has become less costly as a result. What I worry about is the blithe assumption that the tech can ensure quality, and that experienced editors and designers are not needed to take part in the process. In the past 5 years I have seen a sharp decline in much color reproduction of artworks because we are working with digital scans that have no visual guideposts. Every art publisher I know is distressed at this trend. Regards, Eve Sinaiko CAA
[MCN-L] CAA Public Program in NYC on April 29
Dear MCN members, On April 29 the College Art Association is cosponsoring a public program on art images and copyright law, together with the NYC Bar Association, Creative Commons, and ARTstor. We expect a lively discussion among our distinguished panelists. The information is below, and I also attach a flyer (though I don't know if attachments are accepted on this list.) Please circulate this and post it to relevant listserves or groups. Many thanks, Eve Sinaiko Director of Publications College Art Association * * * Who Owns This Image? Art, Access, and the Public Domain after Bridgeman v. Corel Public Panel Discussion Cosponsored by: Art Law Committee, New York City Bar Association College Art Association ARTstor Creative Commons Panelists: Dr. Theodore Feder, President, Art Resource, Artists Rights Society Christopher Lyon, Executive Editor, Prestel Publishing William Patry, Senior Copyright Counsel, Google Hon. Richard A. Posner, United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit Maureen Whalen, Associate General Counsel, J. Paul Getty Trust Moderator: Virginia Rutledge, Chair, Art Law Committee, New York City Bar Association; Vice President and General Counsel, Creative Commons Who owns the Mona Lisa? In Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled that exact photographic copies of two-dimensional public domain works of art are not copyrightable under U.S. law, because such images are not original. Yet nearly a decade after that decision, copyright in many such images continues to be asserted. This program addresses questions currently debated across the worlds of art, publishing, and the law: Should access to public domain artworks control uses of images of those works? When and how should custodians of public domain artworks exercise control over reproductions of them? How does contract intersect with copyright in the control of image uses? Does the image permissions hurdle play a role in the decline of art publishing, or are the complaints of critics overwrought? What is the nature of the public domain with respect to works of art? When: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 6:30 - 8:00 pm Where: The Great Hall, New York City Bar Association, 42 W. 44th Street, New York City This program is free and open to the public; no reservation required. Seating is limited.
[MCN-L] Digital distribution as PDF with e-signature
We are currently investigating the possibility of distributing contracts licenses as secure encrypted PDFs and I was wondering if anyone had experiences to share and / or recommendations. We are particularly interested in workflows around e-signature, especially since the documents in question currently need to be countersigned both by internal staff and the external customer. I too would love to hear from others about software and setups for this. Shyam, can you tell me how the MMA currently handles e-contracts? I've seen MMA locked PDF licenses with blank windows to be filled in. What other features are needed? I'm hoping to implement an e-contract system for at least some of our numerous author agreements. Regards, Eve Eve Sinaiko Director of Publications College Art Association 275 Seventh Avenue, 18th floor New York, NY 10001 212-691-1051 ext. 208 esinaiko at collegeart.org www.collegeart.org
