I am working with a couple of RR Historical Societies on scanning and cataloging photos, maps, ETTs, etc. with the intent of putting them on the web.

I am looking for a good copyright reference which can tell me what can or cannot have a copyright claim by the Historical Societies and what can or cannot be put one the web.

I need something written by a lawyer, not some "experts" opinion.

Something I can pull out of my desk drawer and hand to someone who asks "Why is this not on the web?".

-Hudson

Good morning!

The U.S. Copyright Office ( http://www.copyright.gov/ ) is a good place to be become familiar with copyright law. The following two publications may be helpful:

Copyright Basics
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Fair Use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

You may want to create an analysis sheet for each work that is submitted for posting on the web site. That sheet would document your analysis of the copyright and fair use status of the work. The material in the two preceding publications should provide a basis for the questions that you need to answer. This sheet would help you defend why an item was or was not posted to the site.

Have fun!

Honestly, you literally need textbooks. And frankly, even the best of them will flub something like this. And you're wading into a minefield. Do you actually own any copyright to the photos, timetables, ETTs. etc. you want to post? If not, what makes you think you can copyright them once you put them on the web?

What you are looking at is your rights to share these resources as a library, museum, or other information resource. This is a slightly murkier field than just posting a personal website or a commercial resource.

As informal and cavalier as this website may be at times, this entry in the well-regarded Straight Dope is a good start, especially the bibliography at the bottom:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... ork-part-1

Your closest public or academic library is all but guaranteed to have several books on the subject; you will find them under Dewey 346.048 or Library of Congress Catalog # Z642. Go review, pick out one that suits your needs, and then go buy a copy somewhere.

This book is considered one of the "go-to" resources for the field, but it ain't cheap:
http://www.amazon.com/Copyright-Librari ... 0838910920

Thanks for the book link, that looks like what we need, I ordered a copy.

-Hudson

That "not" troubles me. It makes it sound like, contrary to your first statement, you are stocking up on reasons to NOT put things on the web. if that's not YOUR intent, but I find it to be one typical of archivists - stuck in preconceived notions of how copyright works, which haven't changed since their college years.

In that case, feel free to grab any old copyright book from... your college years. Like


Yeah. Perfect. Did you read the Amazon reviews? First, it's a revision of a book previously revised in 2000 (uh oh), and one review claims the newest articles are 2005-2006. Is that valid?

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-gray-areas-of-searchengine-law
The Google Book Search lawsuit ”is the vastest stand-alone case out there,” says Grimmelmann. ”This one could shape copyright law for a generation.”

That was a 2008 article, mind you. Do you know the outcome of that case? This is a very turbulent time for copyright law, especially for libraries and double-especially for the Internet. So you're right in the eye of the storm.

OP seemed to be looking for a book to point to, to tell somebody "this thing is definitely NOT legal." He's out of luck. It could be legal next Tuesday. It may have been made legal LAST week and he wouldn't know that unless he follows the news in that area, copyright bloggers, recent cases etc.

The good news is, it "ratchets" in favor of the archivist. Things are only getting MORE legal because all the test cases involve new explorations of Fair Use.


And Wikipedia does that type of analysis sheet for every contribution. They are good people to follow and learn from, unless you are smarter than Wikipedia's copyright lawyers. Keep in mind Wikipedia is in the SF Bay Area, where most of the law in this area is being made.

Look, we have to acknowledge that the whole issue is like trying to nail gelatin and whipped cream to the wall. This is partly why I recommended an actual library--they have an obligation and imperative to supply the latest possible information available on the subject. (Not that they actually will have it, just that they'll do the best they can. That is, provided you deal with someone with actual Library Science training or certification, not just a shelving volunteer.)

And frankly, in this field of work you quickly learn not to trust anything, no matter how expensive the book or fancy the degree of the guy spouting it. The internet may be easier to update and provide more current information than a textbook, but anyone can post anything. Part of the issue with problems like this is that someone can conceive of, and write laws or rules for, 68,723 different scenarios, and someone will instantly come up with scenarios 68,724 through 69,830. This is part of why government regulation expands to burdensome levels.

I can't and won't get into the issues or intentions of the original poster. Not my job. All I can do is point the way towards self-education.



I could argue that this year's Tourist Trains Guidebook from Kalmbach is "a revision of a book previously published in 1966." Does that render it useless? Even the printed encyclopedias didn't revise every article every year (I know; I wrote some for a couple). I can neither vouch for or against the accuracy or timeliness of that particular book; all I know is that it was stocked, either as circulating or non-circ reference, in most of the dozen or so library systems with which I checked before making that post (public and university). In a couple, it was the only book they had specifically on the subject at hand.

Then I reviewed the specific comment to which you refer: a comment for an earlier edition, posted in 2009, for an edition published at the end of 2011, which "0 of 8 people found this review helpful". Amazon reviews, like the internet itself, have to be taken with a grain or two of skeptical salt.

I WANT to put things on the web, the question is what can I put on the web.

Photographer donates slides to HS, assigns copyright to HS, OK to be put on the web.

Person donates a box of Al Chione duplicate slides to HS, I can't put them on the web, but I can index them and put the index on the web, if someone wants to see the image they have to come visit, maybe I can can send them a scan.

Person donates a box of unmarked slides, don't know who the photographer is, can tell by processing dates that some are duplicates (Mallet on the hill with stockcars with 1984 processing date most likely is a duplicate). I can index, but can I put images on web.

I take a Barney & Smith builders photo and spend a couple of months of time on and off cleaning it up, and making it pretty, Author visits archive gets copies of this and other photos, publishes books, and the photos get the credit "Authors Collection", I mention this next time I see him and and told "tough it's in public domain".

Just had a case in the news today about the use of pictures by the press from Facebook.

I just want to be able to share these treasures.

This is maybe the wrong place for this discussion, but thanks for the links.

I think I will give up and go downstairs and take up basket weaving.

I signed a copyright agreement with our local museum that basically states that if I use their photos I must give the museum credit as owners of the photos. Since I'm not out to make money, just share history, I'm not worried and neither is the museum. In fact the museum just might help me with printing a book and then it can be sold through the museum (a proposal will be submitted to the board for funding).

I've shared images from government sources which were military and most likely fall under public domain.

Steve

You can always "maybe" yourself into paralysis. I would argue that this is the reason we don't see much in the way of mainline excursions anymore.

I applaud you for at least trying to do the "right" thing. Exactly what that "right thing" will be will depend on your research and circumstances. But remember that there's a massive canyon between "everything's free for all" and "protecting" an archive so thoroughly that no one can ever use it, and thus it effectively gets abandoned in a basement because no one can get at it and thus no one cares. The balance that has to be struck is careful sharing--let them "ooh" and "aah," tempt them with nuggets, but don't give them free rein. And unless you have a massive endowment, you DO have to charge a bit to keep the lights and computer on, even if the work is all labors of love and volunteer and salvaged shelving.

One compromise: low-resolution scans. 72 DPI is good enough for web browsers, but not good enough for publication.

You think you want to take up basket weaving? Here's my/our scenario as of today:

Guy dies, leaves his entire estate to a museum.
Some of the stuff in the estate is outside of the mission of said museum, and is instead shared with another group under whose mission it does fall. In a joint deal, members of both organizations scan willy-nilly for both groups--"git 'er done."
Guy who died had boxloads of photo prints that he "inherited" from another photographer. (We're talking thousands of prints. Just in the boxes we've sorted into already.)
Said boxloads are a mix of personal photos, traded photos, copy photos, and photos purchased from other collectors or dealers, as indicated by stamps on the back or simply the subject matters. (He obviously didn't take an 1885 photo, for example.)
The one dealer whose stuff shows up frequently is still in business in 2013, if his website is to be believed. But almost every photo HE'S selling is itself from some 250 other photographers (including, of course, our collector here), some of them well-known names in rail photography. He's stamping them with his dealer's stamp and a catalog/negative number and "Reproduction Rights Reserved," but I could certainly question whether he bought the copyright along with the negatives--if, indeed, he even bought the negatives in the first place.....

So suppose I have this photo stamped from that dealer, and Trains wants to publish it and pay for it. What do we do? Who gets paid what? Is there even enough money at issue here to think this much about it?


Now, the guy who died and left his estate apparently bought out/inherited/whatever at least FOUR complete photo collections of this type. Including a quite comprehensive collection of European tram photos from throughout the early to mid-20th century.

And they wonder why my whisky's gone and the rum is fast receding.......

Just say f*** it and upload it all anyway if someone has a problem they will file a at which point you say sorry and take it down or contest it.

Sorry for being grumpy. If you're all for it, that's GREAT news! What it means is basically, you just need to be a bit of a "copyright geek" and follow trends in copyright.

This is not as hard as it seems, just follow technical blogs and publications about copyright - watch the sources of course. Read an occasional appeals court ruling. Understand not only what the laws are, but what the penalties are - or are not! Like I said in the other post,think of it in three tiers.

1. Things which are not in copyright at all.

2. Things which are in copyright, however Fair Use permits your usage. (or other terms, such as GPL, have the same effect.)

3. Things which are in copyright and not fair use, but the actual legal risk is nil. Because the property has negligible commercial value to them; your use is non-commercial; or the law gives you a safe harbor of some kind that lets you escape penalties.

RCD, though flippant, is correct: half the damn internet is built on a widely used variation of #3: Infringe til caught, then claim honest mistake, simper an apology and take it down. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk
In this case, their safe harbor is the actual DMCA safe harbor (which says if your site automatically accepts contributions from the general public can't possibly be expected to patrol everything coming in.)

If you're really serious about knowing an answer to a copyright question, the only way to know for sure is to consult with a copyright attorney. It costs money but if it's a simple question it might not cost too much money.
Otherwise, grab the hammers and I'll go make the Jello for you to nail to the wall...

The web has created a new and frightening level of ignorance as to what copyrights really protect. "Fair use" is as much of a overused and misunderstood term as "full coverage" is in the insurance industry (another thing everyone has opinions of but hardly anyone truly understands). I do know a copyright attorney who I occasionally ask to go after people who've used my drawings and photos online. I don't bug him too much because when I need him for something, it's usually a favor I'd have to pay big bucks for (saving the life of someone who later turns out to be a lawyer can be a smart thing, even if you didn't know it at the time). He laughs at the whole, 'fair use' deal. He once said, "I swear everyone thinks that just means I can use it online if I'm not making money off it," when nothing could be further from the reality...

Make sure to have a good one. Here is how I would pick a good one. First, he practices in the Bay Area, because that is where almost all the new case law is being forged. He'll be able to give driving directions to the 9th Circuit off the top of his head. And he'll be a litigator, so he will have an intimate understanding of that third category I discuss.

Here's what you don't want: some clown who resolves every gray area by saying "don't do that" ... no point paying for that, you can be a chicken all by yourself for free. His value is in CLEARING what you CAN do, and giving you a realistic hit on what resistance you'll encounter for any given activity.

In any case, you still you have to educate yourself! Without spending $200/hour for a tutor. This has to be one of the trades you're a jack of.


The Web is also a priceless gateway for "jacks of all trades" to access deep and accurate information about copyrights.

So it is a double edged sword in the fullest of meanings. The facts are the facts whether you know them or not. A lazy or vain researcher can use the Internet quite badly. But a careful, interested scientist who's into the truth of things can use the Internet quite well. The trick is to be the latter, and that's up to you.