Re: [MCN-L] [IP SIG:] International copyright, publication, and U.S. public domain
In Germany and other countries that recognize a life+70 (or less) term, Klee's works would be in the public domain. I don't know if the laws in countries that have a longer term (Mexico, etc.) are retroactive or if they follow the rule of the shorter term (which would make German status apply). But Jessica is very astute to recognize that the publication status of the work might affect its copyright status in the U.S. Here are some possibilities: 1) If the work was first published with the authority of the copyright owner in 1931, and the work was included in the book under the authority of the copyright owner (so that is a true publication for copyright purposes), then it is possible the copyright was restored by 17 USC 104A. You then look to see if it was protected by copyright on 1 Jan. 1996. Since Klee died in 1940, and Germany had a life +70 term in 1996, his works would have been protected. That means copyright in the work was restored and would last for the normal US term in 1931, i.e., 95 years, or until 1 Jan. 2027 (95 years after publication date). 2) But publication could happen in ways other than through reproduction, as Jessica astutely notes. I don't think that you would need to consider what constitutes publication in Germany, but only in the U.S. If it was, as Jessica suggests, "offered for sale by a gallery, dealer, or public auction," or if it was displayed without restrictions on the ability of the public to make reproductions of the work, that could constitute publication under U.S. law. If it occurred in 1924, then the work would enter the public domain on 1 Jan. 2020. Wikimedia Commons has a good discussion of this at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paul_Klee. It concludes that: It can probably be assumed that works by Klee published prior to 1923 are free both in the U.S., in Switzerland and in Germany as in the rest of the EU, as well as works first published in Switzerland after 1933 (because, as Swiss works, they lost their copyright in the country of origin in 1991 and were thus not protected on the URAA date of January 1, 1996). Klee works published from 1923 to 1933 may not be in the public domain in the U.S. Of course, all this is likely academic. The real question is whether the Klee estate or ARS on its behalf would be likely to bring an action based upon presumed publication and subsequent restoration of copyright. It would be a stretch: as Deborah Gerhardt documented in her paper, "Copyright Publication: An Empirical Study," the record of what courts considered to be publication is very mixed. I suspect that ARS might not want to risk bringing a suit that would test whether publication had occurred and copyright had been restored. That may be why reproductions of Klee's works are common on the Internet. Furthermore, it may be that ARS is asserting control over Klee's non-copyright rights, such as trademark or rights of publicity. I know of at least one instance where VAGA suggested that it had copyright in an artist's work when it actually owned the rights of publicity for the model in the work. But whether you want to proceed is a legal and risk assessment decision that you would have to make after consulting with the appropriate authorities. Peter B. Hirtle Alumni Fellow, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University peter.hir...@cornell.edu Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142 -Original Message- From: mcn-l On Behalf Of Matt Morgan Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:11 AM To: mcn-l@mcn.edu Subject: Re: [MCN-L] [IP SIG:] International copyright, publication, and U.S. public domain Paul Klee's works are in the public domain owing to the death+70 rule. See this earlier post to MCN-L celebrating that glorious release: https://www.mail-archive.com/mcn-l@mcn.edu/msg04126.html Best, Matt -- Matt Morgan m...@concretecomputing.com On Wed, May 29, 2019, at 10:00 AM, Jessica Herczeg-Konecny wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I have a question about international copyright. I have been scouring > the R Handbook and reached out to Anne Young. Anne provided me with > a lot of helpful information and also encouraged me to post to the > listserv (thank you so much for everything, Anne!) > > The Detroit Institute of Arts has a 1924 work by Paul Klee (Swiss, > died > 79 years ago) in our collection. I have a strictly commercial use for > the image (definitely not "fair use"). > > 1. Do I even bother trying to figure out if our work is in the > public domain since Klee is an ARS artist? > 2. I have found an image of the work in a book published in Germany > in 1931 (there is a copyright notice at the front of the book). I can > show a good-faith effort for research, and I th
Re: [MCN-L] Public Domain Day 2016
Richard, that is a great question. Nothing leaps to mind. The excellent new book Rights & Reproductions: The Handbook for Cultural Institutions (https://aam-us.org/ProductCatalog/Product?ID=5186) discusses how difficult it can be to determine publication status (and how important as well), but doesn't provide a lot of guidance on how to do it. Perhaps the best thing to read to get caught up is Deborah Gerhardt's article, "Copyright at the Museum: Using the Publication Doctrine to Free Art and History" (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2505041). Gerhardt's article is more about libraries and archives than museums, and it is particularly focused on whether the gift of a work to a public repository "published" it. Nevertheless, her summary of her earlier empirical study on publication in the courts highlights how they are no bright lines. That is good news for a work that is by an artist who died before 1946. Gerhardt's analysis suggests that chances are good that many pre-1978 works were "published" in in a way that injected them into the public domain. If the works are truly unpublished, they would have entered the public domain on 1 January of this year. The biggest risk would be with American works that were registered for copyright (and subsequently had their copyrights renewed) or with non-American works that are deemed to have been published and thus received a 95 year copyright term, regardless of the death date of the author. Peter Hirtle -Original Message- From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Rich Cherry Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 3:53 PM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Public Domain Day 2016 Peter, Its been quite a while since I thought about the definition of "publishing of an artwork".. has there been any case law updates that refine the definition? Rich On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Peter B. Hirtle <p...@cornell.edu> wrote: > Remember that only unpublished works by authors who died in 1945 > entered the public domain in the US this year. Published works may > still be protected by copyright. Determining the publication and > public domain status of a museum object is difficult and must be > calculated on an item-by-item basis. > > Peter B. Hirtle, FSAA > Affiliate Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard > University peter_hir...@harvard.edu phir...@cyber.law.harvard.edu > peter.hir...@cornell.edu > http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual23436 > Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. > Libraries, Archives, and Museums: > http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142 > > > -Original Message- > From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf > Of Diane Zorich > Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 11:35 AM > To: Museum Computer Network Listserv <mcn-l@mcn.edu> > Subject: [MCN-L] FW: Public Domain Day 2016 > > Public Domain Day, folks! > > (I love Heidi's excitement at "flipping the rights status" and would > like to suggest that museums who do this might want to announce it > more publicly via their social media outlets - when the occasion > warrants it, of course.) > > -Diane > > From: Visual Resources Association <vr...@listserv.uark.edu> on > behalf of Heidi Raatz <hra...@artsmia.org> > Reply-To: Visual Resources Association <vr...@listserv.uark.edu> > Date: Monday, January 4, 2016 10:46 AM > To: <vr...@listserv.uark.edu> > Subject: Public Domain Day 2016 > > Happy Public Domain Day! Here's your graduating class of 2016: > > http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/class-of-2016/ > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicdomainreview > .org_ > > collections_class-2Dof-2D2016_=BQMFaQ=JL-fUnQvtjNLb7dA39cQUcqmjBVI > TE8MbO > > dX7Lx6ge8=a9UTc_1dkRcFJvGH4QJ61zK_g8diw8hHBvEtyREkAAY=zeR-5SqZqgDH > LYhzk_ > Xe7BbbewxjAvQqb5CkOrAs6kg=4b_xmoxHVXI6Sq6h6Tpbk732pGRYwJQiVsG6rFizm7 > o= > > > > Quite possibly my favorite task of each new year is flipping the > rights status for objects in our museum permanent collection from > Copyright Protected to Public Domain. Watch our collections website < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__collections.artsmi > a.org > > _=BQMFaQ=JL-fUnQvtjNLb7dA39cQUcqmjBVITE8MbOdX7Lx6ge8=a9UTc_1dkRc > FJvGH4 > > QJ61zK_g8diw8hHBvEtyREkAAY=zeR-5SqZqgDHLYhzk_Xe7BbbewxjAvQqb5CkOrAs6 > kg=S uOd_1NpB8v88g8LunNeNd7lSoY3UfsaAg7n6hAh9AU=> for new biggie > images to download in the next few days after the data determining > their statuses refreshes. > > All best, > Heidi > > > -- > Hei
Re: [MCN-L] Public Domain Day 2016
Remember that only unpublished works by authors who died in 1945 entered the public domain in the US this year. Published works may still be protected by copyright. Determining the publication and public domain status of a museum object is difficult and must be calculated on an item-by-item basis. Peter B. Hirtle, FSAA Affiliate Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University peter_hir...@harvard.edu phir...@cyber.law.harvard.edu peter.hir...@cornell.edu http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual23436 Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142 -Original Message- From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Diane Zorich Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 11:35 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv <mcn-l@mcn.edu> Subject: [MCN-L] FW: Public Domain Day 2016 Public Domain Day, folks! (I love Heidi's excitement at "flipping the rights status" and would like to suggest that museums who do this might want to announce it more publicly via their social media outlets - when the occasion warrants it, of course.) -Diane From: Visual Resources Association <vr...@listserv.uark.edu> on behalf of Heidi Raatz <hra...@artsmia.org> Reply-To: Visual Resources Association <vr...@listserv.uark.edu> Date: Monday, January 4, 2016 10:46 AM To: <vr...@listserv.uark.edu> Subject: Public Domain Day 2016 Happy Public Domain Day! Here's your graduating class of 2016: http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/class-of-2016/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicdomainreview.org_ collections_class-2Dof-2D2016_=BQMFaQ=JL-fUnQvtjNLb7dA39cQUcqmjBVITE8MbO dX7Lx6ge8=a9UTc_1dkRcFJvGH4QJ61zK_g8diw8hHBvEtyREkAAY=zeR-5SqZqgDHLYhzk_ Xe7BbbewxjAvQqb5CkOrAs6kg=4b_xmoxHVXI6Sq6h6Tpbk732pGRYwJQiVsG6rFizm7o=> Quite possibly my favorite task of each new year is flipping the rights status for objects in our museum permanent collection from Copyright Protected to Public Domain. Watch our collections website <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__collections.artsmia.org _=BQMFaQ=JL-fUnQvtjNLb7dA39cQUcqmjBVITE8MbOdX7Lx6ge8=a9UTc_1dkRcFJvGH4 QJ61zK_g8diw8hHBvEtyREkAAY=zeR-5SqZqgDHLYhzk_Xe7BbbewxjAvQqb5CkOrAs6kg=S uOd_1NpB8v88g8LunNeNd7lSoY3UfsaAg7n6hAh9AU=> for new biggie images to download in the next few days after the data determining their statuses refreshes. All best, Heidi -- Heidi S. Raatz, MLIS Visual Resources Librarian | Permissions Officer Minneapolis Institute of Art 2400 Third Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 612.870.3196 | hra...@artsmia.org <mailto:hra...@artsmia.org> | www.artsmia.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.artsmia.org_=BQMF aQ=JL-fUnQvtjNLb7dA39cQUcqmjBVITE8MbOdX7Lx6ge8=a9UTc_1dkRcFJvGH4QJ61zK_g 8diw8hHBvEtyREkAAY=zeR-5SqZqgDHLYhzk_Xe7BbbewxjAvQqb5CkOrAs6kg=b3z1QZToC hxKQ3wSldM8jtqibm7143rsbcehNrG3pmQ=> | VisRes Request Form [internal use] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ow.ly_43q4p=BQMFaQ= JL-fUnQvtjNLb7dA39cQUcqmjBVITE8MbOdX7Lx6ge8=a9UTc_1dkRcFJvGH4QJ61zK_g8diw8 hHBvEtyREkAAY=zeR-5SqZqgDHLYhzk_Xe7BbbewxjAvQqb5CkOrAs6kg=Vw72ARZX_eiyKY 8nPBehFPcFlHN9IQDmUC9g9LcX8Ww=> Sent via the listserv of the Visual Resources Association: http://www.vraweb.org/. Join VRA or subscribe: http://vraweb.org/membership/join/. Unsubscribe, search the archive, or customize your subscription: http://vraweb.org/membership/vral/. Questions regarding subscriptions or VRA membership: j...@vraweb.org. ___ 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] FYI: New study on Copyright Limitations And Exceptions For Museums
William Maher has brought to my attention a new report that should be of interest to some members of this list. It is Study On Copyright Limitations And Exceptions For Museums prepared by Jean-François Canat and Lucie Guibault, in collaboration with Elisabeth Logeais, at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=302596. The report has been prepared for the next meeting of WIPO's Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which has been considering a possible international treaty on exceptions for libraries, archives, and museums. The report discusses definitions of what constitutes a museum, notes how digital accessibility has changed museum practice, surveys existing laws around the world that provide copyright exceptions for museums, and provides general recommendations for lawmakers and the museum community. I am still digesting its findings and so haven't decided whether its conclusions go far enough. I'd be interested in the opinion of others. Peter B. Hirtle, FSAA Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society, Harvard University Senior Policy Advisor, Cornell University Library peter_hir...@harvard.edumailto:peter_hir...@harvard.edu phir...@cyber.law.harvard.edumailto:phir...@cyber.law.harvard.edu peter.hir...@cornell.edumailto:peter.hir...@cornell.edu t. 607.592.0684 http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/individual23436 Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142 ___ 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] Different Copyrights / Different Image Resolutions
I think I see two possible misunderstandings in your original question. First, there is only one copyright here: the copyright in the photograph of the urn. (I am going to assume, like Amalyah, that the Greek urn itself is ancient and now in the public domain.) A medium resolution version is not a copyright derivative even though it may have been derived from a high-resolution original. It is just a copy. As the Copyright Office pamphlet on derivative works states: To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Furthermore, in order to have a copyright separate from the original photograph, it must possess, according to the Feist decision, at least some minimal degree of creativity. So your medium-resolution version fails on both counts: it is not a derivative, and it does not embody any creativity of its own. You instead have two versions of one copyrighted work. Now let's think about the CC license. The copyright statement for both versions would be the same: (c) Museum Institution, 2014. The medium version's CC license would license the copyright and not any specific manifestation of that copyright. So the license that applies to the medium version would also apply to all other expressions of the copyrighted work - including the high-resolution version. And remember that the CC licenses prohibit you from imposing terms on the use of the copyrighted work that would prevent others from doing what the license allows. So if you licensed the medium resolution version as CC BY, you can't then impose other restrictions when you distribute a high-resolution version of it. (Or rather, you could impose those restrictions, but you would have no legal basis for objecting if someone ignores your terms.) It seems to me that if you want to impose different use restrictions on different resolutions, you are going to have to do that with contract terms that you devise and not a CC license. But there is some question whether contractual downstream use restrictions are legal. More importantly, you have to decide if you are willing to go to court to sue one of your customers/users. If not, it seems silly to try to impose the restriction in the first place. This, of course, is not legal advice and IANAL, just a simple archivist. Peter B. Hirtle, FSAA Research Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society, Harvard University Senior Policy Advisor, Cornell University Library peter_hirtle at harvard.edu phirtle at cyber.law.harvard.edu peter.hirtle at cornell.edu t.? 607.592.0684 http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/individual23436 Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142 -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Kate Blanch Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:58 AM To: 'mcn-l at mcn.edu' Subject: [MCN-L] Different Copyrights / Different Image Resolutions Hello MCN, This may be a rather dense question regarding copyright law...but as it's outside my area of expertise I figured this community could provide a great reference point. My own research is not turning up an good answers/examples either! Do any institutions assign different copyright statements to derivatives of the same image, depending on that image's resolution? Take for example, a photo of a Greek urn in a museum collection. Would it be common practice for a high-resolution TIFF of this photo to bear a (c)Museum Institution, 2014 statement, while a medium-resolution JPG of the same photo would bear a (c) Creative Commons License? Does this scenario fit within basic copyright law or guidelines? If anyone is differentiating copyright statements based on image resolution, do you have this policy written/documented in a shareable way? Thanks for any feedback you might have! Kate Blanch Administrator, Museum Databases kblanch at thewalters.org / 410.547.9000 ext. 266 The Walters Art Museum 600 N. Charles Street, Baltimore MD 21201 www.thewalters.orghttp://www.thewalters.org/
[MCN-L] Permissions
The Cornell University Library adopted an open access to public domain images policy in 2009. You can read our rationale in this article at http://publications.arl.org/rli266/2. To date, the museum at Cornell has not elected to follow the Library's lead. Peter Hirtle -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Cathryn Goodwin Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:59 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Permissions An addendum to this thread is the fact that many institutions, Princeton among them, are more quietly adopting an open access to public domain images policy - I'd be interested in a show of hands. Cathryn -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of David Green Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:48 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Permissions Absolutely agree, of course. And see today's NYT article about the Rijksmuseum's contribution to the way forward: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/arts/design/museums-mull-public-use-of-online-art-images.html?nl=todaysheadlinesemc=edit_th_20130529_r=0 We're a public institution, and so the art and objects we have are, in a way, everyone's property, said [Taco Dibbits, the director of collections at the Rijksmuseum,] in an interview. 'With the Internet, it's so difficult to control your copyright or use of images that we decided we'd rather people use a very good high-resolution image of the 'Milkmaid' from the Rijksmuseum rather than using a very bad reproduction, he said, referring to that Vermeer painting from around 1660. David Green redgen at mac.com @redgen 203-520-9155 On May 27, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Kenneth Hamma khamma at me.com wrote: Thanks, Peter. It is dismaying that anyone could not imagine that there's any way around the wide variety of charges and procedures that collections - perhaps sometimes thoughtlessly? - interpose between themselves the public for whom they are stewards. For those, here are some starting points. https://images.nga.gov/en/page/show_home_page.html http://britishart.yale.edu/collections/using-collections/image-use http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_this_site/terms_of_use/free_image_s ervice.aspx https://www.lacma.org/about/contact-us/terms-use http://thewalters.org/rights-reproductions.aspx Knowing that it can be bothersome to visit websites and read, let me copy the simple image rights/use statement from the Walters Art Museum: All photography on our website(s) is governed by Creative Commons Licensing and can be used without cost or specific permission. Artworks in the photographs are in the public domain due to age. The photographs of two-dimensional objects have also been released into the public domain. Photographs of three-dimensional objects and all descriptions have been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License. Cheers, ken Kenneth Hamma Yale Center for British Art kenneth.hamma at yale.edu On May 27, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Peter B. Hirtle pbh6 at cornell.edu wrote: For a different perspective from a different field, MCN-L readers might be interested in a forthcoming paper from John Overholt addressing the future of special collections in libraries. It is called Five theses on the future of special collections, and a preprint is found at http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10601790/overholt.pdf. One of his five theses speaks precisely to the issue of permissions. It begins this way: The future of special collections is openness. We are not the creators of our collections; we are their stewards. They were entrusted to us to preserve them, certainly, but preservation without use is an empty victory. It ought to be our primary purpose at all times to minimize barriers to use, so it is all the more shameful when we interpose such barriers ourselves, not out of concern for the health of the collections, but out of the misguided belief that we are entitled to control, even to monetize, their use. When we claim copyright over our digital collections, or impose permission fees or licensing terms on users, we are arguably misrepresenting the law, and certainly violating one of the central ethical tenets of the profession: to promote the free dissemination of information. It would seem to me that image permissions would be much simplified if only permission of the copyright owner had to be secured (and then only if the use was not a fair use). Peter Hirtle -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah Wythe Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 3:59 PM To: mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Permissions I don't think there's any way around the wide variety of charges
[MCN-L] Permissions
For a different perspective from a different field, MCN-L readers might be interested in a forthcoming paper from John Overholt addressing the future of special collections in libraries. It is called Five theses on the future of special collections, and a preprint is found at http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10601790/overholt.pdf. One of his five theses speaks precisely to the issue of permissions. It begins this way: The future of special collections is openness. We are not the creators of our collections; we are their stewards. They were entrusted to us to preserve them, certainly, but preservation without use is an empty victory. It ought to be our primary purpose at all times to minimize barriers to use, so it is all the more shameful when we interpose such barriers ourselves, not out of concern for the health of the collections, but out of the misguided belief that we are entitled to control, even to monetize, their use. When we claim copyright over our digital collections, or impose permission fees or licensing terms on users, we are arguably misrepresenting the law, and certainly violating one of the central ethical tenets of the profession: to promote the free dissemination of information. It would seem to me that image permissions would be much simplified if only permission of the copyright owner had to be secured (and then only if the use was not a fair use). Peter Hirtle -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah Wythe Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 3:59 PM To: mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Permissions I don't think there's any way around the wide variety of charges and procedures, but I was struck by the frustration of the writer, who clearly had never done image acquisition before. It's a skill, just like any other. Filling in for our RR coordinator, I've learned just how many emails it can take to get all the information we need to help them. I've often wondered if there was a way to connect museum staff with art history grad programs to get this topic on their curriculum. Shouldn't every budding writer have a brief tutorial on copyright, image acquisition, image quality, etc? Then again, when I was in grad school and suggested to my advisor that we put together a guide to doing primary source research, he put me off, saying that we should all be figuring it out ourselves and that was one way they sorted the wheat from the chaff. I won't address the differing policies and prices -- that's a different (and difficult topic) -- but putting chocolate on our fee schedules is an interesting concept. Deborah Wythe Brooklyn Museumdeborahwythe at hotmail.com From: lesleyeharris at comcast.net Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:06:38 -0400 To: mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Permissions Whoops--article is at http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/opinion-snap- decisions/2003969.article. On May 24, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Lesley Ellen Harris lesleyeharris at comcast.net wrote: This article on obtaining permissions from museums will be of interest to MCN members. Lesley lesley at copyrightlaws.com www.copyrightlaws.com ___ 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] Update on Images for Academic Publishing...?
Stephanie: The Cornell University Library does not charge any permission fees to use public domain images from our holdings. See http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/guidelines.html; you can find a rationale for this policy at http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/rli-266-cornell.pdf. If the resolution available on our web site, in ARTstor, or in Flickr is good enough, scholars can do anything they want with library images. There may be a service fee if we need to either digitize an item or retrieve a higher resolution digital file from our servers. Note that this permission only extends to Library images. Images from other Cornell units (including the Museum) may still have restrictions. Peter B. Hirtle Senior Policy Advisor and Fellow, Society of American Archivists Digital Scholarship Services Cornell University Library 2B53 Kroch Library? Ithaca, NY? 14853 peter.hirtle at cornell.edu t.? 607.255-4033 f.? 607.255-9524 http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/vivo/individual23436 Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142 -Original Message- From: sbe...@lclark.edu Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:57:38 -0700 To: mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: [MCN-L] Update on Images for Academic Publishing...? **Please excuse cross-posting!** Hello collective wisdom, I wanted to update my records on which museums and institutions offer images for academic publishing, so that if a faculty member wants information on what is available out there for high-quality imagery for their upcoming publication, I will have an updated list. At VRA/ARLIS 2011, ARTstor presented on the expansion of their IAP program, so I am already aware of what they are doing. My records are now outdated and consist of the VA Museum and the British Museum. Does anyone know of others? Also, I know that stipulations usually require a print run of 4,000 or less and may have other usage restrictions. In addition to ARTstor, I am also aware of VADS, Bridgeman Art Library, AKG-images, and of course, Art Resource. From the VRA Listserve, I was able to add AICT and Yale University Art Gallery my no-cost list and the New York Public Library, the Granger Collection, and Archivision as some for-a-fee options. Are there other similar services? Thank you so much! Stephanie Beene (MA and MSIS) Visual Resources Coordinator Lewis and Clark College 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd. Portland, OR 97219-7899 sbeene at lclark.edu Phone: (503) 768-7387 Fax: (503) 768-7282 *Visit us @:* http://library.lclark.edu/vrc -- Lewis Clark's VRC's Website http://accessceramics.org/ -- accessCeramics, a Contemporary Ceramics resource http://lcvrc.blogspot.com/, Image/Idea, Lewis Clark's VRC Blog
[MCN-L] RE: Using old postcards to create new souvenirs: copyright?
Amalyah Keshet wrote: ?Just curious: If a work by Matisse had been purchased for MoMA from Matisse or his dealer *in France*, would the Pushman Doctrine still have applied? I suspect that French law would think otherwise. Did the Doctrine apply only to works purchased in the US?? That is an interesting question. Off the top of my head, I don?t know of any common law court cases that address this jurisdictional issue. My guess would be that NY courts would conclude that a sale that took place in France would likely be governed by French law. If MoMA had purchased a work in France for delivery to the US, however, the NY courts might be willing to claim jurisdiction ? and apply NY law ? even when French law would, as you note, be different. But this is primarily a theoretical issue. I don?t foresee many museums trying to assert copyright ownership ? especially when they might still be liable for infringement outside of the U.S. Peter
[MCN-L] Using old postcards to create new souvenirs: copyright?
As far as I know, postcards had to follow the same rules as all published material to acquire copyright protection. That is, there had to be a copyright notice on the postcard, and the copyright had to be renewed after 28 years. If neither occurred, the postcard would rise into the public domain. You can look at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ to determine when items enter the public domain in the U.S. You can learn more about copyright and the public domain in Copyright Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums, available for sale on Amazon or as a free PDF download at http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142. Peter B. Hirtle Senior Policy Advisor Digital Scholarship Services Cornell University Library 2B53 Kroch Library? Ithaca, NY? 14853 peter.hirtle at cornell.edu t.? 607.255-4033 f.? 607/255-9524 http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/vivo/individual23436 -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Stephanie Weaver Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:00 PM To: mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: [MCN-L] Using old postcards to create new souvenirs: copyright? Hi MCN, I know many of you deal with copyright so wanted to ask for your input. One of my clients would like to create new postcards from historic postcards of their site that they have collected or purchased (but not accessioned). At what point do mass-produced images become public domain? The original postcards are from the 1920s-1940s. Copies of these postcards are most likely in collections in our local historical society. Thanks, I appreciate you sharing your expertise. Best, Stephanie Weaver Visitor experience consultant experienceology: Because happy visitors return. San Diego, CA Skype: experienceology E-news: http://www.experienceology.com/newsletter/ For information on our book, blog, podcast, upcoming classes, and e-news, visit www.experienceology.com or follow me on twitter.com/experienceology. See samples of my classes here: www.youtube.com/experienceology. Watch the free archived version of my class on the visitor experience here: http://bit.ly/NlunE Upcoming presentations: Interpretation Canada online conference: November 30, 2010 Hawai'i Museums Association: January 2011 (TBD) Past presentations: Palo Alto Art Center: October 2010 Western Museums Association: October 2010 Heard Museum Phoenix Zoo: October 2010 Downey City Library: August 2010 American Association of Museums: May 2010 Tijuana Estuary docent training: April 2010 UCLA Extension: January 2010
[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). 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. Peter B. Hirtle
[MCN-L] IP SIG - orphan works question
Since orphan works legislation has not passed, classifying a work as an orphan work has no legal significance: it is purely an internal administrative matter. And consequently, there is no requirement about how to label things - it is up to you. (Of course, since March, 1989 there has been no requirement to mark any copyrighted work. There are only restrictions on removing existing copyright notices.) But while there may be no legal requirement to mark works, I think it is always useful to provide as much information to users as possible. If you know who the copyright owner is (and that is not always the case with orphan works), why wouldn't you want to let people know? The exact wording would depend on how much information you have. If you are sure that someone has the copyright, say so, and give the date if you know it. If you are presuming or assuming that the artist has the copyright, then say that as well. And if you don't know who owns the copyright, then say current (c) owner unknown. Should you also indicate the authority under which you have made the reproduction? Since it would have to be a fair use, I am not sure it is necessary, especially if you have terms governing the use of the reproductions elsewhere. Peter B. Hirtle??? CUL Intellectual Property Officer Scholarly Resources and Special Collections Cornell University Library??? 221 Olin Library? Ithaca, NY? 14853 peter.hirtle at cornell.edu t.? 607.255-4033 f.? 607.255-2493 http://www.copyright.cornell.edu Author of Copyright and Cultural Institutions: http://bit.ly/ciU1rg -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Cathryn Goodwin Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 3:58 PM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: [MCN-L] IP SIG - orphan works question When due diligence has been done to find a copyright holder, and the decision has been made to classify a work as an orphan work, is a museum still required to place a (c) the artist statement when reproducing the work? (artist death date 2005) Thanks Cathryn ___ 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://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
[MCN-L] copyright question
just think about copyright. Peter -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah Wythe Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:49 PM To: mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: Re: [MCN-L] copyright question Thanks, Peter. as always, you've covered the bases thoroughly and clearly. Would that copyright itself was that clear! Looks like my next step is to try to research the provenance more deeply. I know where we acquired the painting, but not whether the original sale was from the artist to that gallery. The 1940 registration was not in the name of the artist, but of the New York Graphic Society, a print company with a Living American Artists series. Best, Deb deborahwythe at hotmail.com From: pbh6 at cornell.edu To: mcn-l at mcn.edu; musip at yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:09:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [MCN-L] copyright question Deb, it sounds like what you are asking is when was this painting published for copyright purposes. That, as you know, is often a very difficult question to answer. There are lots of possibilities: 1. Did the artist offer the painting for sale to the public in 1928? If she did, and there is no copyright notice on the painting, it entered the public domain at that time. 2. If there was a private sale, the party purchasing the painting most likely acquired copyright in the painting (under the Pushman Doctrine), unless there was a clause to the contrary. If the copyright owner then put the work on public display and did not restrict the public from making copies of it, it entered the public domain. 3. Did the 1938 appearance in the journals constitute first publication? Perhaps - if the images appeared with the permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized publication does not affect copyright status. (This, btw, is why Happy Birthday is supposed to be still protected by copyright. Earlier publications of the song were unauthorized.) 4. Was the 1940 registration in the name of the artist, or was it a registration to protect the print made from the painting? If the latter, then the publication of the derivative work would have published the original work as well. Failure to separately renew copyright in the original work would have placed it in the public domain. My guess is that the painting, like probably 90% of the pre-1960 artwork in American museums, is in the public domain. But you also need to think about risk assessment. Does the artist's estate believe in asserting copyright, even when none exists? Is it important enough to you to take them on? Peter Peter B. Hirtle Senior Policy Advisor Scholarly Resources and Special Collections Cornell University Library 221 Olin Library Ithaca, NY 14853 mailto:peter.hirtle at cornell.edu t. 607.255-4033 f. 607.255-2493 http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/vivo/individual23436 -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah Wythe Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:17 PM To: musip at yahoogroups.com; mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: [MCN-L] copyright question Here's a question for the copyright mavens among us: A painting, created in 1928, was published as an image without copyright notice in 1938 in articles in Art News and Art Digest. A print of the work was published and copyright registered in 1940 and renewed in 1968. In the former case, the work is not under copyright. In the latter, it is protected until 95 years after 1940, or 2035. (I'm basing this on Peter Hirtle's http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm) Is the painting a different work? Or is its (c) status affected by the later publication? Thanks for your input! Deb Wythe Brooklyn Museum deborahwythe at hotmail.com _ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL: ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 ___ 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://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/ ___ 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://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can
