Hello All,
If I were to make a digital image of say the original Mona Lisa and put it
out on a website, it seems to me that even though the original artwork is on
display in a museum, the digital copy which I made at my own expense belongs
to me. Even though Beinecke has graciously not included their watermark on
the digitized images, their images are clearly identifiable by the folio
hold down plastic strip (and yes, I realized that the strip can be digitally
removed). The steps to be taken here seem simple and straightforward, get
written permission from Beinecke (or is this too much trouble or maybe we
are afraid of being denied) to use their images in any publications desired,
regardless of any perceived or implied interpretation of copyright law (laws
may change and be reinterpreted, even across state or provincial lines;
there may also be implied copyright protection for what is in the public
domain); and secondly, be absolutely sure to give recognition (in this case
to Beinecke) where recognition is due. Finally, I would think that these two
procedures would be a minimum necessity whenever any form of profit may be
realized. I would caution anyone to attempt to interpret local and
international law without legal representation (which I would think might be
"easily" realized through written permission from Beinecke). I am a bit
concerned that Beinecke may be put into a position of having to place
restrictions on the use of images that were made and "published" on the
internet in the public domain. Remember that Yale has a reputation to
maintain and might not be so pleased to see their images in "unauthorized"
publications. I realize that what I have said here can be argued ad
infinitum, but I suggest that (and I am not implying otherwise) we remain up
front and forward with our intentions concerning the Beinecke digital
images. I think it is in our own best interest. Just my two pence worth.
Regards,
Dana Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Ogburn" <ogburn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: VMs: Re: VMS images and copyright
Hi Jan,
In the end I agree with you about what we should do, but I want to be
clear on
the reasons. Let's break this up into two different categories. The
first
category is the law, and the second is courtesy.
The law:
No copyright really does mean no control. On what basis can this be
contested? Any agreement between the library and the authors of the
Churchill / Kennedy book is irrelevant to the rest of us, because a
contract
can only bind the parties to that contract. The Bridgeman decision and
the
library's own response to GC agree that these images are in the public
domain. That means no legal restrictions at all, and permission is
completely irrelevant. I suggest reading the Bridgeman decision - it's
quite
readable and considers a very similar situation.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm
Courtesy:
We should respect the effort and money that have gone into making these
images. Proper attribution and credit are certainly in order, and any
commercial product using the images should seek the library's blessing
first.
It seems that all they ask is proper acknowledgement and a courtesy copy.
This is very reasonable and we should honor it. This is where I
completely
agree with you, but as a matter of good manners, not a legal obligation.
I hope this makes things clearer.
- Walter
On Sunday 20 June 2004 04:30 am, Jan wrote:
Hello Walter,
======= At 2004-06-19, 21:41:00 you wrote: =======
(If they don't hold copyright, then Beinecke has no legal control at
all -
you can use and distribute them for free, for profit, modified,
unmodified, whatever you want.)
This statement can be surely contested. True, they could not have made
it
more public then by posting it on net with encouragement for downloads.
But that's where their permission stops - they did incurred high
expenses
for the scanning etc., so profiteering is certainly out of line and
anybody
who would charge more than expenses for the copies could be branded
that
way.
All this is actually only a speculation. Why don't you directly tell
Beinecke what you intend to do and ask their permission? Especially
when
you will charge only expenses? They of course do have the right to be
the
first to do that themselves. If they decline, they may not have further
grounds for refusing the approval, but that is still not enough. On the
other hand, the coincidence of VM scanning and the new book by
Churchill/Kennedy may suggest that the initiative for scanning came
from
authors. After all, one of the authors is the relative of Mr. Voynich.
Now
if for instance the above book may present some scans as well, you may
have
a problem - we do not know what their agreement was.
Jan
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list