copyright | Spellbound Blog

Chapter 1: Inheritance of Digital Media by Dr. Edina Harbinja

December 13, 2018

The first chapter in Partners for Preservation is ‘Inheritance of Digital Media’, written by Dr. Edina Harbinja. This topic was one of the first I was sure I wanted to include in the book. Back in 2011, I attended an SXSW session titled Digital Death. The discussion was wide-ranging and attracted people of many backgrounds including lawyers, librarians, archivists, and social media professionals. I still love the illustration above, created live during the session.

The topic of personal digital archiving has since gained traction, inspiring events and the creation of resources. There are now multiple books addressing the subject. The Library of Congress created a kit to help people host personal digital archiving events. In April 2018 a Personal Digital Archiving Conference(PDA) was held in Houston, TX. You can watch the presentations from the PDA2017 hosted by Stanford University Libraries. PDA2016 was held at the University of Michigan Library and PDA2015 was hosted by NYU. In fact, the Internet Archive has an entire collection of videos and presentation materials from various PDA’s dating back to 2010.

I wanted the chapter on digital inheritance to address topics at the forefront of current thinking. Dr. Edina Harbinja delivered exactly what I was looking for and more. As the first chapter in Part 1: Memory, Privacy, and Transparency, it sets the stage for many of the common threads I saw in this section of the book.

Here is one of my favorite sentences from the chapter:

“Many digital assets include a large amount of personal data (e.g. e-mails, social media content) and their legal treatment cannot be looked at holistically if one does not consider privacy laws and their lack of application post-mortem.”

This quote gets at the heart of the chapter and provides a great example of the intertwining elements of memory and privacy. What do you think will happen to all of your “digital stuff”? Do you have an expectation that your privacy will be respected? Do you assume that your loved ones will have access to your digital records? To what degree are laws and policies keeping up (or not keeping up) with these questions? As an archivist, how might all this impact your ability to access, extract, and preserve digital records?

Look to chapter one of Partners for Preservation to explore these ideas.

Bio

Dr. Edina Harbinja is a senior lecturer in media/privacy law at Aston University, Birmingham, UK. Her principal areas of research and teaching are related to the legal issues surrounding the Internet and emerging technologies. In her research, Edina explores the application of property, contract law, intellectual property, and privacy online. Edina is a pioneer and a recognized expert in post-mortem privacy, i.e. privacy of the deceased individuals. Her research has a policy and multidisciplinary focus and aims to explore different options of regulation of online behaviors and phenomena. She has been a visiting scholar and an invited speaker to universities and conferences in the USA, Latin America, and Europe, and has undertaken consultancy for the Fundamental Rights Agency. Her research has been cited by legislators, courts, and policymakers in the US, Australia, and Europe as well. Find her on Twitter at @EdinaRl.

Yahoo & Google’s Search for Reusable Images and the Flickr Commons

June 13, 2009

When I read about Yahoo Image Search’s recent addition of a filter to return only creative commons Flickr images, I got all excited about what this might mean for images in the Flickr Commons. So I raced off to the Yahoo Image Search page to see how it works. The short answer is that the new special rights setting of no known copyright restrictions that they created for members of the Flickr Commons apparently doesn’t count.

For my test I searched for an exact match on “Ticket with portrait of George Washington”. This returns one result – the one image in Flickr with the same name, from The Field Museum in Flickr Commons. If you click on the ‘More Filters’ link, you will see other ways to filter your Creator permits reuse - Yahoo image search results – including the option to restrict your results to only include images whose creators permit reuse.

Next I clicked in the ‘Creator allows reuse’ and my one result disappeared! Quite disappointing in my book.

Google is also getting onto the ‘make it easy to search for reusable images’ bandwagon. Search Engine Land reported that Google Images Quietly Adds Creative Commons Filter. That post pointed me to Google Operating System‘s search interface that lets you play with the options that Google has available. After a clicking through to some of the images returned by a Google Image Search for creative commons images of archives, the way the Google model appears to work is to look for creative commons badges or links on the page with the image. I even found Flickr creative commons images, but when I tried to find my Flickr Commons image of the ticket used above for my Yahoo image search experiment it wasn’t returned by Google either.

So if an archives (or museum or library) posts images on a page that indicates that the content is licensed under creative commons, it seems those images will then appear in Google’s image search as reusable. That is good news! Another way to get users to find your public domain images.

The question I am left is how to resolve the gap between Flickr Commons’ ‘no known copyright restrictions rights statement and both Google and Yahoo’s definition of reusable content.

Warner Brothers Archive DVDs: Classic Movies On-Demand

April 17, 2009 1 Comment

The latest example of a media company finding a way to profit from their archives, Warner Brothers has launched the Warner Brothers Archive. Nestled neatly within the the WBshop.com website, among the TV shows and promotional merchandise, the movies from the archives include everything customers have come to expect from an online shop. We have user reviews, video clips and the ways to share links. You can browse by genre or decade. They are currently holding a vote to see what title should be added to the inventory next.

One of the films available from the archives is the 1975 action feature Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze. Embedded below is a 30 second clip showing Doc Savage entering his “Fortress of Solitude”. They could have made it easier for me to embed this (I had to go figure out how to embed FLV files into this blog post) – but I am happy that they let me embed it at all. If you don’t see a video below, you probably need to install adobe’s shockwave. You can always go watch the clip on the Doc Savage page (click on Video Trailers & Clips).

Each film page carefully notes “This film has been manufactured from the best-quality video master currently available and has not been remastered or restored specifically for this DVD and On Demand release.” and then directs the customer to view the preview clip to evaluate the film’s quality.

The details comes out when we dig into the Warner Archive FAQ. It is here that we learn that the DVDs we can purchase for $19.95 are produced “on-demand”. How are they different from the DVD’s you buy at the store?

DVD’s produced on-demand are similar to, but not quite same as, DVD’s you’d buy at the local video store. DVD movies you buy at the local video outlet are manufactured from a mold via a stamping process whereas on-demand DVDs are “burned”. Each carries information read by the DVD player, but the physical properties of the two are different.

Most DVD players are compatible with both commercial DVD-Video and one or more of the “recordable DVD formats. Our on-demand DVD’s are manufactured using the most widely accepted format, DVD-R.

They also answer this question about copying the DVDs:

Q: I’m trying to make a few extra copies of my DVD, for “safe keeping” and for a surprise present to my mom. When I copied the disc it was un-playable. Why is that? And what can I do about it?

A: This DVD on-demand disc was recorded using CSS encryption. CSS is designed to prevent unauthorized reproduction of the DVD. We’re delighted that you’d like to surprise your mother with the gift of a Warner Bros classic movie. May we suggest she’d like an officially produced and packaged DVD even more? As such we welcome your visit back to the Warner.com classic store at any time.

In addition to being able to purchase DVD-Rs with CSS encryption, many of the archives films permit a download option. Archives movie downloads appear to cost $14.95. The Digital Products FAQ explains the details, but these are the highlights of what comes along with that $5 in savings:

Downloads are protected by DRM
Downloads only play on MS Windows boxes – no Mac or Linus support
You can burn the movie to a CD or DVD, but they “are Digital Rights Management (DRM) protected, so you will only be able to watch the video on the computer or device on which it was originally purchased.”

I give a big thumbs up to Warner Brothers for coming up with a way to leverage their archives. I am less impressed with the non-open format and DRM restrictions they are placing on both the DVD-Rs and downloads. A model that states that a purchased download can be played as often as I want – but requires a specific operating system and only permits play on the same machine from which I made the purchase seems untenable. If I were to buy one of these films, I would spend the extra $5 and get the DVD-R which at least can be played on multiple machines, even if it can never be copied!

Online Interactive U.S. Copyright Slider

August 2, 2008

Remember when I posted about the Copyright Slider: Quick Easy Access to Copyright Laws and Guidelines? This was my last line in that post:

My next question is how hard would it be to make a slick flash version of this that could live online and be updated as copyright rules change?

Well, thanks to Digitization 101’s A digital version of the Copyright Slider post I discovered that exactly what I wished for now exists. Go take the Digital Copyright Slider for a spin.

The interface is clear and simple – they did a great job of taking advantage of the interactive medium to do things they couldn’t do on the paper slider. If it won’t disturb your neighbors, turn up the volume to hear the satisfying click each time you move the slider to a new scenario. Make sure you click on some of the *s to see more detailed information. Take note of the advice regarding more complicated scenarios as well as the links directly to documents detailing specific copyright laws.

I love that it has been licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license. The creators have included their contact information along with the idea that other institutions could host custom copies of the slider with their own copyright research contacts. The only downside I see to this is that if there are changes to US copyright law, it will take time for updates to a central copy of the slider to propagate to local customized copies.

The final question is how fast they can update the slider in the event of changes to copyright law – but we will have to wait on changes to the US copyright landscape before we can find that out!

Image Credit: Image above is taken directly from a screen shot of the Digital Copyright Slider.

Copyright Slider: Quick Easy Access to Copyright Laws and Guidelines

April 9, 2008 3 Comments

ALA OITP Copyright Slider Thanks to Digitization 101’s post I learned about the Copyright Slider. A creation of the ALA’s Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP) – you can find more official information over on ALA’s Washington Office blog (Let the OITP Copyright Slider Answer Your Questions!) and order one of your own for only a bit more than $5 (less if you order in bulk).

The Copyright Slider lets you answer questions such as (quoting the post linked to above):

Is a work in the public domain?
Do you need permission to use it?
When does copyright expire?

Here is their example of how it might be used:

A library in rural Pennsylvania is digitizing its local historical collection on the copper mining industry in the region. One of the collection texts, Memoirs of a Copper Miner, was published in 1953 and is still protected by copyright. Or is it? Align the black arrow on the slide-chart to materials published between 1923 and 1963 and discover that works originally published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright symbol are in the public domain! Memoirs of a Copper Miner was published in 1953 and does not have a copyright symbol. Let the digitizing begin!

This looks like a dandy little tool to have in your desk drawer and I plan to order one sometime soon.

My next question is how hard would it be to make a slick flash version of this that could live online and be updated as copyright rules change?

Image Credit: A cropped version of a photo from the District Dispatch blog post quoted above.

ISSUU: Interesting Platform for Online Publishing

March 2, 2008

Issuu, with the tag line ‘Read the world. Publish the world.’ and pronounced ‘issue’, gives anyone the ability to upload a PDF document and publish it as an online magazine. I am intrigued by the possibilities of using this service to publish digitized archival records – especially those that would lend themselves to a ‘book’ style presentation (thinking here of a ledger or equivalent).

I am not sure I totally understand the implications of the Issuu Terms of service… especially this part:

By distributing or disseminating Uploader Submissions through the Issuu Service, you hereby grant to Issuu a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, assignable, fully paid-up, royalty-free, license to host, transfer, display, perform, reproduce, distribute, and otherwise exploit your Uploader Submissions, in any media forms or formats, and through any media channels, now known or hereafter devised, including without limitation, RSS feeds, embeddable functionality, and syndication arrangements in order to distribute, promote or advertise your Uploader Submissions through the Issuu Service.

If I am following that properly, all the rights you are granting to the Issuu Service are only for the purposes of their distribution of your uploaded PDF.

Issuu has a special Copyright FAQ, which in combination with Peter Hirtle‘s page on Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, should support those trying to figure out if they can upload what they want to upload without getting into copyright related hot water.

So how is it different from a plain old PDF? Take a look at the embedded Issuu viewer below showing a 1908 copy of The Colonial Book of The Towle Manufacturing Company Silversmiths.

I don’t think this would ever be the way you would want to give online access to digitized records in general – but I do think that this could be a great way to highlight a particularly impressive set or volume of documents. If an archives featured one of these a month on their homepage – would people subscribe to their RSS feed just to see the new one? On the actual page on which I found the above document, Issuu makes it easy to subscribe to the RSS feed for the Issuu author ‘silverlibrary’.

I don’t know why Issuu has decided that I must create an account before I may view document author silverlibrary’s user profile. I would hope that there was an elegant way for visitors to see a group of Issuu documents created by the same author without having to create an account first (or ever).

Want to know what others think? Take a look at Finally, a Web-based PDF Viewer That Does Not Suck (Issuu) over on TechCrunch. One interesting tidbit I picked up from that review is that Issuu is based in Denmark. I wonder what impact that has on which copyright rules apply to the documents uploaded into Issuu.

Want to read more about their vision? Of course they have a press release in the form of an Issuu publication and I have embedded it below. I think my favorite line is that Issuu is intended to be ‘YouTube for Publications’.

I would love to see a highlighted section created for ‘cultural heritage materials’ (or something like that anyway). Take a look around Issuu and let me know what you think. Is this a viable tool for an archives or manuscript collection to use to highlight parts of their collection?

LOC + Flickr equals Crowdsourced Tagging

January 17, 2008 7 Comments

It is no surprise that the Library of Congress announcing the publication of images on Flickr is news both in mainstream news outlets and in the blogosphere. From librarian.net‘s short and cheery LoC goes 2.0! post to ArchivesNext‘s pondering Is Flickr “legitimate” for archives now that LOC is there?, I have seen a lot of discussion of LoC and Flickr in my RSS feeds.

What is it all about?

In case you have missed the details, the Library of Congress has published two photo collections on Flickr in a new subsection of the website called The Commons. The two collections are:

1930s-40s in Color: 1615 photos taken by photographers working for the US government’s Farm Security Administration (FSA) and the Office of War Information (OWI) and covering “rural areas and farm labor, as well as aspects of World War II mobilization, including factories, railroads, aviation training, and women working between 1939 and 1944.”
News in the 1910s: 1500 photos taken by photographers who worked for the Bain News Service. Topics include “sports events, theater, celebrities, crime, strikes, disasters, and political activities, with a special emphasis on life in New York City.”

I enjoyed reading Flickr’s own blog post on the subject, Many hands make light work. It gave me a glimpse of their vision. For them, these two collections from the Library of Congress make up a pilot project – this is just the first step.

On their page for The Commons they first talk about their goals for the project:

Back in June of 2007, we began our first collaboration with a civic institution to facilitate giving people a voice in describing the content of a publicly-held photography collection.

The key goals of this pilot project are to firstly give you a taste of the hidden treasures in the huge Library of Congress collection, and secondly to show how your input of a tag or two can make the collection even richer.

On the homepage for the Library of Congress Flickr pilot I found this introduction:

The Library of Congress invites you to explore history visually by looking at interesting photos from our collections. Please add tags and comments, too! More words are needed to help more people find and use these pictures.

So, here we have a project between two large and well known organizations, with their goals carefully aligned. Let’s get more people looking at the amazing photos from the Library of Congress. Let’s also harness the curiosity and enthusiasm of those who want to be more involved and want to tag content. I love it!

Considering the Tags

So then I started looking at photos and the tags they have. I wish (being my database geek self) that I could see the groupings in which tags were added (ie, that one person added tags 3 through 10). They don’t seem to be displayed alphabetically – but rather in the order in which they were added to the photo.

I considered this photo from the 1930s-40s in Color collection:

The list below shows all the tags that were assigned to it, in the order in which the tags are displayed beside the photo above on Flickr (listed separated by commas to preserve space). The ‘Library of Congress’ tag has already been assigned to every photo in the collections upon upload, and therefore always appears first:

Library of Congress, Long Beach, california, 1942, october, WW2, USA, aircraft, douglas, Palmer, WWII, women, manufacturing, yellow, stripes, overalls, engine, Douglas Aircraft, engine installation, military aviation, World War II, women at work, historical photographs, slide film, 4×5, large format, LF, transparency, transparencies, world war 2, technology

In a world with no controlled vocabulary, there seems to be a theory at work of covering all your bases. Rather than noticing that someone had tagged this photo ‘WW2’, it was also later tagged with ‘WWII’, ‘World War II’ and ‘world war 2’. On another photo in the collection I know I saw the tag ‘wwii’. As long as there is no ‘offical’ version for this tag, I see the wisdom in tagging it with all of them – just to be sure.

The official description of the photo is: “Women are trained to do precise and vital engine installation detail in Douglas Aircraft Company plants, Long Beach, Calif. (1942 Oct)”. The metadata provided by the Library of Congress also includes information about the format of the film itself.

These are the subject headings assigned by the Library of Congress catalogers:

Douglas Aircraft Company
Airplane industry
Women–Employment
World War, 1939-1945
Assembly-line methods
United States–California–Long Beach

It is interesting to note that the main things that the independent taggers have captured that the professional catalogers haven’t are either non-topical aspects of the image (‘yellow’ and ‘overalls’) as well as broader more general ideas (‘military aviation’ and ‘technology’).

Does the tag ‘women at work’ tell you more than the LOC subject heading ‘Women–Employment’? Maybe, maybe not – but if you view all the images tagged ‘women at work’ across Flickr, now you can see these women from the 1940s at work beside photos such as three vendors and Bozo village life. Now this is something different. This is knitting threads from the ivory tower of libraries and archives into the communal tapestry that is Flickr. Not only might the addition of the ‘women at work’ tag make these images more accessible to the average person looking for Library of Congress photos – but it also puts these photos in the everyday path of many more people. It brings us firmly back to Flickr’s goal stated above of giving more people a “taste of the hidden treasures in the huge Library of Congress collection”.

Copyright

Flickr has this to say on The Commons’ home page about copyright:

These beautiful, historic pictures from the Library represent materials for which the Library is not the intellectual property owner. Flickr is working with the Library of Congress to provide an appropriate statement for these materials. It’s called “no known copyright restrictions.”

Hopefully, this pilot can be used as a model that other cultural institutions would pick up, to share and redistribute the myriad collections held by cultural heritage institutions all over the world.

I am with ArchivesNext in hoping that this move by the Library of Congress will give archivists and librarians on the ground in other institutions a bit more ammunition with which to fight for posting their images on Flickr. Copyright is one of the issues that seems to give so many organizations pause – so it is interesting to see this new category having been created specifically for cultural institutions. I like that they link back to the Library of Congress’s official answer about what it means if the catalog record notes ‘No known restrictions on publication’. Flickr also explicitly mentions that “If the pilot works – or, when it works! – we’ll look to allow other interested cultural institutions the opportunity to extend the application of “no known restrictions” to their catalogues.” So clearly “no known copyright restrictions” has been created with cultural institutions in mind.

Final Thoughts

I am intrigued to see how this progresses. If nothing else is accomplished, more people will certainly see images from the Library of Congress collections than they would have had none of these photos been published on Flickr. Some will even surf back to the Library of Congress website to learn more about their photo collecitons. For the example photo I selected above, there were already subject headings assigned – but for most of the Bain News Service photos all that is available are bits of “unverified data provided by the Bain News Service on the negatives or caption cards”. Every tag that is added improves the chances that an interested party may find the photo they need.

I have posted before about the potential of crowdsourcing. I am in favor of it. Yes, all the tags won’t be perfect. Yes, there will be seven different ways of tagging for World War II. But when all is said and done, more people will find more photos. More eyes will see the treasures that once were only available to those who could get inside temperature and humidity controlled vaults. And more people will have the opportunity to learn a tiny bit more about why cultural institutions like the Library of Congress are great!

Public.Resource.Org: Creative Financing and Public Domain Content

July 29, 2007 1 Comment

Public.resource.org is dedicated to using funds contributed by individuals to buy public domain content. This content is then released online in multiple locations such as the Internet Archive and Google Video for use by anyone. I love their tag line: Underwritten By The Feds! Overwritten By You!

I spotted this in boingboing’s post Liberated public domain government docs surfacing online and I was immediately intrigued. This isn’t really an archiving issue exactly – though you could decide that it takes more of a LOCKSS approach to preservation. I also wonder how this approach could be used to finance the digitization of other public domain materials.

The website explains on their About Us page that they have recently applied for non-profit status with the IRS, so soon the purchase price of these materials could become a tax deduction for those who file US Tax Returns. They feature materials from 54 different US Federal agencies – from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the IRS. There are materials on the Environment, Public Health, Flying and many more.

But that isn’t all they are tackling – back in May they issued a message to The Internet discussing their attitude toward (and frustration with) the Smithsonian Images website. It begins:

We write to you today on the subject of SmithsonianImages.SI.Edu, a government ecommerce site built on a repository of 6,288 images of national significance. The site is breathtaking in scope, with imagery ranging from the historic cyanotypes of Edward Muybridge to historic photos from aviation, natural history, and many other fields. If the Smithsonian Institution is our attic, these photos are our collective scrapbook.

However, the web site imposes draconian limits on the use of this imagery. The site includes a copyright notice that to the layman would certainly discourage any use of the imagery. While personal, non-commercial use is purportedly allowed, it requires a half-dozen clicks before the user is allowed to download a low-resolution, watermarked image. An image without the watermark and at sufficient resolution to be useful requires a hefty fee, manual approval by the Smithsonian staff, and the resulting invoice specifically prohibits any further use without permission.

The letter goes into great detail about why they disagree with how things are being done – take a look if you are curious. Also -they didn’t just create this letter – they also created a free to download book titled Public Domain Prospectus which they declare as a tool for those researching the public domain status of the 6,288 images included (in their low resolution watermarked versions).

I went hunting on the Smithsonian Images site to see for myself. I found a few things. While the prices for prints or digital files do seem expensive to my eyes – there is the following note included in the Product and Pricing Information:

Special Note on Pricing: Smithsonian Photographic Services, as an instrument of the Smithsonian Institution, is a non-profit entity. Fees associated with the delivery of images represent material fees only and go to support the broader mission to create, archive, and preserve images associated with the Institution and it’s holdings.

That page also includes some information about how the images may be used, but for the full story I headed over to the Copyright Policy. That is when I started to get confused. The copyright policy on that page talks about “Use of text, images and other content on this website…”. Does that mean these same rules apply to the images you purchase as well?

Let’s take a closer look at one of the pages about a specific image. Here is a nice one of Fireworks over National Monuments. I click on the tempting ‘Download Image’ button and now I see more about what the Public.Resource.Org folks are talking about. One more click and I finally find what appears to be the official Commercial Use of Smithsonian Images page which concludes with:

Commercial distribution, publication or exploitation of Smithsonian files is specifically prohibited. Anyone wishing to use any of these files or images for commercial use or publication must first request and receive prior permission by contacting [Smithsonian Institution Office of Imaging & Photographic Services]. Permission for such use is granted on a case-by-case basis. A usage fee may be involved depending on the type and nature of the proposed use.

There is a special policy for school, teacher and student use of the watermarked versions of the images for free (with the right citations of course).

If I understand the Public.Resource.Org’s issues, it isn’t predominately with the price of the high resolution digital versions or even the print versions of these photos (though they DO touch on it in their letter and I think I side with Smithsonian Images on that aspect – it does cost money and time to make all that available). Rather it is with the firmness that Smithsonian Images claims that you must request permission to use any of the images you purchase for anything beyond personal or educational use. I think I like what NARA has on their website concerning the publication of their still photos which begins with these two paragraphs:

Generally, photographic records copied and sold by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) may be published without special permission or additional fees. NARA does not grant exclusive or non-exclusive publication privileges. Copies of Federal records, as part of the public domain, are equally available to all.

A portion of the photographs among our holdings are or may be subject to copyright restrictions. The National Archives does not confirm the copyright status of photographs, but will provide any information filed with the photograph. It is important to note that all of the digital images that are available on our website are in the public domain.

I can see how it might seem safer (from a “don’t sue us” point of view) to force a search by hand for each and every image as users request to use them. At the same time I would like to think that the folks over at Smithsonian Images already know which images are in the public domain. Maybe I am oversimplifying this, but I want to believe that the details of copyright are part of the metadata that could be supplied along with the date, photographer’s name and description.

I prefer the National Archives’ approach of stating clearly that they do not confirm the copyright status of photographs. They put it in the hands of the entity who wants to use the materials – though that might be small comfort to the average citizen not well versed in copyright rules.

The Wikipedia page on Copyright status of work by the U.S. government includes sections about digital historical material as well as work produced by government contractors. Reading through this makes me realize how quickly the copyright status of images such as those provided by Smithsonian Images and NARA can get confusing.

I think what Public.Resource.Org is doing with their propagation of public domain materials to locations where the public can actually get at them easily is interesting. I want to check back in a year and see how much they have set loose – and what materials they are asking for help to liberate. As I mentioned above, I think there could be some interesting models of individuals donating money to finance the digitization and of public domain materials. Something like what Fundable does to take pledges toward a specific fund-raising goal – and then only turn those pledges into funds if the goal is reached.

As for their great frustration with Smithsonian Images? Well, I see Public.Resource.Org’s side. In this age of Flickr.com – people are growing used to watching for Creative Commons Licenses. With so much out there with liberal Creative Commons Licenses and in the Public Domain, why struggle with images that are copyright protected unless you really need to?

I would like to think that rights management is one of the first things that would get sorted out before a large image collection is put online – especially if the goal is to produce a revenue stream. That said – I would love to know the real story here. I can imagine that the rights on many of those images are not clear cut. But if the Smithsonian Image people know that some of them are in the public domain – then why would they go through all that extra trouble to force a rights search for every image? Why not distinguish the ones which require research from those that don’t? Couldn’t it only help support the work of the Smithsonian to have their images used by as many projects as possible? Anyone reading this have an answer for us from the inside?

About the image above: Given that I prefer images without watermarks (as provided by Smithsonian Images) and that I know that the images on NARA’s site are in the public domain I went hunting for something pretty – and found the image I feature above. To find it yourself do a search for [Sunrise on Malibu Lake] in the Archival Research Catalog (ARC). These are the details included with the image:

Sunrise on Malibu Lake in the Santa Monica mountains near Malibu, California, which is located on the northwestern edge of Los Angeles County. The mountains contain the last semi-wilderness in Los Angeles County. This area so far has escaped development pressure. Some 84 percent of the state’s residents live within 30 miles of the coast and this concentration has resulted in increasing land use pressure. Several commissions have been authorized by the legislature to restrict coastal development, 05/1975.

Item from Record Group 412: Records of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1944 – 2000. NARA NAIL Control Number: NWDNS-412-DA-15109. Photograph by Charles O’Rear.

Copyright Law: Archives, Digital Materials and Section 108

April 12, 2007 2 Comments

I just found my way today to Copysense (obviously I don’t have enough feeds to read as it is!). Their current clippings post highlighted part of the following quote as their Quote of the Week.

“[L]egislative changes to the copyright law are needed. First, we need to amend the law to give the Library of Congress additional flexibility to acquire the digital version of a work that best meets the Library’s future needs, even if that edition has not been made available to the public. Second, section 108 of the law, which provides limited exceptions for libraries and archives, does not adequately address many of the issues unique to digital media—not from the perspective of copyright owners; not from the perspective of libraries and archives.” Marybeth Peters , Register of Copyrights, March 20, 2007

Marybeth Peters was speaking to the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch of the Committee on Appropriations about the Future of Digital Libraries.

Copysense makes some great points about the quote:

Two things strike us as interesting about Ms. Peters’ quote. First, she makes the quote while The Section 108 Study Group continues to work through some very thorny issues related to the statutes application in the digital age […] Second, while Peters’ quote articulates what most information professionals involved in copyright think is obvious, her comments suggest that only recently is she acknowledging the effect of copyright law on this nation’s de facto national library. […] [S]omehow it seems that Ms. Peters is just now beginning to realize that as the Library of Congress gets involved in the digitization and digital work so many other libraries already are involved in, that august institution also may be hamstrung by copyright.

I did my best to read through Section 108 of the Copyright Law – subtitled “Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives”. I found it hard to get my head around … definitely stiff going. There are 9 different subsections (‘a’ through ‘i’) each with there own numbered exceptions or requirements. Anxious to get a grasp on what this all really means – I found LLRX.com and their Library Digitization Projects and Copyright page. This definitely was an easier read and helped me get further in my understanding of the current rules.

Next I explored the website for the Section 108 Study Group that is hard at work figuring out what a good new version of Section 108 would look like. I particularly like the overview on the About page. They have a 32 page document titled Overview of the Libraries and Archives Exception in the Copyright Act: Background, History, and Meaning for those of you who want the full 9 years on what has gotten us to where we are today with Section 108.

For a taste of current opinions – go to the Public Comments page which provides links to all the written responses submitted to the Notice of public roundtable with request for comments. There are clear representatives from many sides of the issue. I spotted responses from SAA, ALA and ARL as well as from MPAA, AAP and RIAA. All told there are 35 responses (and no, I didn’t read them all). I was more interested in all the different groups and individuals that took the time to write and send comments (and a lot of time at that – considering the complicated nature of the original request for comments and the length of the comments themselves). I was also intrigued to see the wide array of job titles of the authors. These are leaders and policy makers (and their lawyers) making sure their organizations’ opinions are included in this discussion.

Next stop – the Public Roundtables page with it’s links to transcripts from the roundtables – including the most recent one held January 31, 2007. Thanks to the magic of Victoria’s Transcription Services, the full transcripts of the roundtables are online. No, I haven’t read all of these either. I did skim through a bit of it to get a taste of the discussions – and there is some great stuff here. Lots of people who really care about the issues carefully and respectfully exploring the nitty-gritty details to try and reach good compromises. This is definitely on my ‘bookmark to read later’ list.

Karen Coyle has a nice post over on Coyle’s InFormation that includes all sorts of excerpts from the transcripts. It gives you a good flavor of what some of these conversations are like – so many people in the same room with such different frames of reference.

This is not easy stuff. There is no simple answer. It will be interesting to see what shape the next version of Section 108 takes with so many people with very different priorities pulling in so many directions.

The good news is that there are people with the patience and dedication to carefully gather feedback, hold roundtables and create recommendations. Hurrah for the hard working members of the Section 108 Study Group – all 19 of them!

Category: copyright

Bio