Sara Schechner wrote on 11/2/06, 8:37 AM: > Historical materials may be protected by the estate of the original > creator, but more often they are under the jurisdiction of the > present institutional owner. This is true even in the cases where > multiples were produced or printed, as in say early books, prints, > maps, photos, and illustrations. In such situations, the text or > graphic is not copyrighted if it exceeds a certain age, but the image > of a particular object embodying that text or illustration is > copyright protected by the owner of the book, map, photo, etc. So, I > can publish the words of a Shakespeare sonnet that I copied from a > 17th century volume, assuming that the very same words and > orthography appear in other extant copies of the volume. But I > cannot reproduce an image of the page without the permission of the > library or person that owns the particular volume that I > consulted. That page is one of a kind, with its blemishes, > annotations, and provenance.
IANAL, however I think this understanding of copyright law is inaccurate, at least as it pertains to copyright in the US. Please note that my discussion is mostly limited to works that fall clearly in public domain, such as the 17th Century Shakespeare sonnet mentioned above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain In the US Copyright is a limited monopoly granted to **creative** works. All works published anywhere in the world before 1923 are in the public domain in the US. There is still unsettled case law on “newly published” works that were created before 1923 but any anonymous unpublished work created before 1883 is generally considered in the public domain. The details are slightly arcane but followable. http://ahc.uwyo.edu/documents/about/publications/handouts/copyright.pdf For works and volumes that are in the public domain there is no creative aspect in the flaws of a particular edition regardless of being "one of a kind, with its blemishes, annotations, and provenance"--and even if there were, all of those flaws would also now be the public domain along with the original text. Likewise, merely scanning or photographing a work in the public domain does not automatically confer a new copyright of that work--even of those scans or photographs--because there may be little or no "creative" aspect that has been added by converting images to digital form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation http://cnx.org/content/m13952/latest/ I think where people become confused is that institutions are under no obligation to give you access to their collections—to their "real property." They can ask people to agree to reproduction and licensing restrictions not strictly related to copyright in exchange for access to the material but this should not be confused with any actual or legitimate **intellectual property** ownership of a work in the public domain merely because they own a **physical copy**. Owning a physical copy != copyright ownership even if you own the last remaining copy of an ancient work. This applies to museums just as much as it does individuals. Only works that are **still** under their original or renewed copyright which has been licensed to or transferred to an institution can be considered copyright by that institution. Intellectual property which is in the public domain either by expiration of copyright or by never having been eligble for copyright in the first place (e.g. Shakespeare) can not be magically removed from the public domain by museums or individuals regardless of their ownership of a physical copy--however, compilations, restoration work, new translations and other **new** creative work added to the older work can be copyright even though those additions don't make the original works newly copyrighted. Naturally, many museums believe their physical ownership of a work should grant them copyright ownership of that work regardless of whether the work is in the public domain—but such a position is generally in contradiction with copyright law in the US where phyical ownership of real property and ownership of intelectual property are separate legal issues where neither automatically confers ownership of the other. Of course, much of copyright law is not clearly laid out by stature. Copyright law has changed over the years leaving copyrights that span these changes a challenge and there are still a great many issues to be decided by the courts. Additionally, my knowledge of copyright is certainly incomplete so check with a copyright attorney regarding matters such as these. If anyone believes anything I’ve written to be incorrect, please join the discussion! Additional information: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-a.html#4 http://www.postcard.org/publicdomain.htm Sara Schechner wrote on 11/2/06, 8:37 AM: > > > It is too bad that this dialogue has led to John C. throwing up his > hands in dismay and removing his website, saying that we have taken > all the fun out of it. As a historian and museum curator, I know how > hard it can be to follow these rules, but the final product is well > worth the effort. > > Many people are truly in the dark about the use of images of objects > owned by others. They deserve our patience and guidance. Copyright > issues are just one piece of the situation. Sometimes the owner of > an object may be a "private collector" or institution that would > rather not publicize his/her/its ownership for privacy or security > reasons, although they may be willing to have the image > published. (This came up for discussion by the NASS board when it > created the sundial register on its website. It was decided that one > could not post the location or image of a privately held > sundial--particularly an antique garden instrument--without the > owner's permission.) Other times, the owners just want to make sure > the use is appropriate, and not, say, commercial or perverse. > > John P's thoughtful message shows another area of confusion: > > At 01:49 AM 11/2/2006, John Pickard wrote: > >If you want a nightmare of copyright and IP on images and other > >material, try some of the public libraries who have copies of old > >photos. I have seen the identical photo taken in 1910 in five > >different libraries, and each library is claiming copyright in the > >photo. What a load of bull! They may own the physical print, but > >they sure don't own the copyright! > > Historical materials may be protected by the estate of the original > creator, but more often they are under the jurisdiction of the > present institutional owner. This is true even in the cases where > multiples were produced or printed, as in say early books, prints, > maps, photos, and illustrations. In such situations, the text or > graphic is not copyrighted if it exceeds a certain age, but the image > of a particular object embodying that text or illustration is > copyright protected by the owner of the book, map, photo, etc. So, I > can publish the words of a Shakespeare sonnet that I copied from a > 17th century volume, assuming that the very same words and > orthography appear in other extant copies of the volume. But I > cannot reproduce an image of the page without the permission of the > library or person that owns the particular volume that I > consulted. That page is one of a kind, with its blemishes, > annotations, and provenance. > > Happy research and dialling! > Sara > > > > Sara Schechner, Ph.D. > David P. Wheatland Curator > Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments > Department of the History of Science > Harvard University, Science Center 251c > Cambridge, MA 02138 > Tel: 617-496-9542 > Fax: 617-496-5932 > > --------------------------------------------------- > https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial > --------------------------------------------------- https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial
