Re: VMs: Re: VMS images and copyright

[Walter Ogburn <ogburn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

According to GC, Beinecke itself agrees that it holds no copyright to the 
images, so there is no need to rely on my understanding or the Bridgeman 
decision (which is nevertheless very informative).

The point is just that Ken can make his pdf document without worrying about 
getting sued, and secondarily, that incorrect copyright attribution should be 
avoided.  The images can be credited as courtesy the Beinecke library, etc., 
but not copyright anyone.

- Walter



On Sunday 20 June 2004 01:00 pm, William Edmondson wrote:
> Hi Dana, all
>
> I agree - don't assume homespun copyright legal opinions are sound.  We
> might get stung and also create some really bad vibes which could hold
> back our work.
>
> I'd like to suggest something even more positive than just asking for
> permission - although that must be a minimum.
>
> Why not offer to do a really good job of producing a printed version and
> do it for Beinecke, for ourselves, and for profit (the person(s) who
> actually do it should take the cash)?
>
> I suspect that Beinecke have higher resolution master files, as Gabriel
> suggests, and they might be able to work with whoever wants to actually
> compile the printed item to produce a really high quality artefact (I
> know that they have files with colour matching strips on them - they
> told me - and those would be needed for printing to get the colours
> really carefully controlled).
>
> So - go to them with a worked out proposition, a business plan even!
>
> Cheers
>
> William
>
> DANA SCOTT wrote:
> >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
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list