[MCN-L] IP SIG - orphan works question
The law defines the first holder of copyright as the author / creator. That is the assumption we go by when we state (c) the artist or (c) the artist's estate (if the artist is no longer alive) as the default. Not to state that would make us extremely uncomfortable. 99 % of the time it is an accurate statement. It is rare for an artist to transfer copyright to another party. We have run into exactly one instance of that happening, in the 1920s. Amalyah -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Eve Sinaiko Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:00 PM To: 'Museum Computer Network Listserv' Subject: Re: [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 ___ 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] 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] IP SIG - orphan works question
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 Keshet Head of Image Resources Copyright Management The Israel Museum, Jerusalem Chair, MCN IP SIG -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Peter B. Hirtle Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:27 PM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [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/ ___ 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] 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 - orphan works question
We treat objects where we've confirmed the copyright status and rights statement (i.e. acquired a license) differently from those where we're assuming that the works may be protected by copyright and we'll eventually be tracking down the artist. The first has a detailed copyright statement: (c) Joan C. Artist The second, a boilerplate statement: (c) artist or artist's estate ...that's exactly as written, without an actual name inserted (it took some doing to get this across to the web programming folks!) The pop up rights explanation has all the mays, mights and we don't warrants to let people know that this is not a legal opinion. Yes, some of the latter works may indeed be in the public domain, but the reality is that we'll never have the time to research status on all of them and even if we do, the next person who wants to use the image is going to have to confirm our research themselves, since our determination could be challenged. I think this is better than leaving it blank -- we may not have the final answer, but if we indicate could be in copyright or no known copyright restrictions, it's going to give the website visitor a clue or starting place. The project I worked on last week -- helped by several folks on this list -- took a solid day's work to gather all the information we needed to satisfy ourselves that the work was in the public domain...or no known copyright restrictions, to play it safe. For one work among thousands. How many of those can we do a year? Honestly, it's easier to find a contact person and simply ask for a license, which is mostly what we do when we can. Deb Wythe Brooklyn Museum deborahwythe at hotmail.com From: evesinaiko at earthlink.net To: mcn-l at mcn.edu Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:59:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [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 ___ 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/ _ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
[MCN-L] IP SIG - orphan works question
I agree. I have heard the term agent used within another schema, I believe, VRC or Dublin core elements. However, I really would concur with the use of the term (c) the artist for a museum! Jeff Barbour School Librarian Centura College - VA Beach Campus 2697 Dean Drive VA Beach, VA 23452 http://news.centuracollege.edu/ On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] wrote: 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 Keshet Head of Image Resources Copyright Management The Israel Museum, Jerusalem Chair, MCN IP SIG -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Peter B. Hirtle Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:27 PM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [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-bounces at 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/ ___ 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 be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
[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
