Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TalkAntietam] Copyright issue with Carman papers?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Recker
    Jake, Thanks. Interesting. Stephen ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 17, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      Thanks. Interesting.


      On Sunday, February 17, 2008, at 01:55 PM, Joseph Pierro wrote:

      > Stephen--
      > For copyright purposes, images are "works" just as much as text is.
      > I'm slightly over-simplifying here for reasons of space (and because
      > the legal profession itself hasn't fully straightened out all the
      > intricacies of copyright law in the digital age), but essentially if
      > the images were ever reproduced for sale (CDVs, for instance), you
      > consider them the way you would published books. If, however, prints
      > were never made from the negative, or if the photographer only made a
      > print for his own use, it's considered an "unpublished" work. The
      > photographer is the "author" for "death of the author" purposes.
      > (Ditto paintings. If it was never copied for sale in any way in any
      > medium, it's "life of the painter +70 years to ge tyou to public
      > domain.)
      > So images ALSO have statutes of limitation on copyright, but
      > institutions have much more control over their use--if only in a
      > practical, not necessarily legal sense -- because they can restrict
      > the physical act of copying that image. Most repositories won't allow
      > you to bring in a camera or a scanner to make your own duplication, so
      > while they might not NECESSARILY own the publishing rights to, say, a
      > particular photo of Stonewall Jackson, you can only get a photo to use
      > in your book if you get the holder to make it for you (usually for a
      > decent-sized fee).
      > If there's an image that Museum X owns, and the copyright has expired,
      > they can control the reproduction (and determine the fees for its use)
      > simply by restricting your access to their original. BUT, if that same
      > image has been, say, reprinted in a book, you can -- legally -- scan
      > it out of that book and republish it yourself without paying any for
      > its use OR getting the museum's permission. (Repositories that used to
      > make a good deal of money on photo reproduction fees are suddenly
      > seeing a lot of revenue dry up, now that scanning and digital photo
      > technology is allowing people to make publishing-quality copies
      > straight out of books. As long as you can find a book where the
      > resolution of the reprinted, public domain image is good enough for
      > your needs, you can scan away and use it in your own book.)
      > For Civil War researchers, 99.999999% of wartime images are going to
      > be public domain. I suppose there MAY be a case where someone took a
      > Civil War photograph, never published it, lived past 1938, AND his
      > heirs are aware of the intricacies of copyright law -- but in that
      > event you'd have to be the unluckiest person who ever lived, in which
      > case being the defendant in an intellectual property-rights lawsuit
      > would probably be the least of your problems. :)
      > --jake

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.