Confusing Copyright
After
reading Cohen and Rosenzweig's "Digital History" chapter on Owning the Past and the links to websites, articles, and videos, I
understand why someone might need an attorney to get advice on a
copyright. It is complicated. Copyright gives the legal owner of a creative work the right to take credit for their work. Big corporations smart enough to register
a copyright (Disney’s Mickey Mouse and Bill
Gates’s Corbis photos) make the researcher wary. What also makes
it complicated is that it even if they (the corporation) themselves pirated the photos or image
from others, they don’t say “oops, sorry, won’t happen again.” At least the
digital historian could say it and remove something quickly from a website. The Disney video poking fun at the corporation, using its film clips in tiny snippets to explain copyright so that Disney cannot claim
the copyright was violated, is a work of genius.
Images and
video and music copyrights are tricky, as well as the time limitations on items
(for photos, anything from 1945 to the present). Recording artists say their creation was “ripped off” or imitated by someone
else (some might consider that high praise, but there are various opinions on tribute bands), but Dr. Martin Luther King’s most famous speech? It was broadcast live to a TV and radio
audience. King’s estate sued CBS because King had registered his work.
(EMI Publishing owned it but got bought by Sony, which now owns it. Corporation wins.) It will again be in the
public domain in 2038. But the phrase "I Have a Dream" has become part of the American vernacular, even appearing on Tee-shirts. Without this copyright, however, it would probably be heard on TV commercials daily and in ways the King family could sue over. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/15/54-years-later-you-still-have-to-pay-to-use-martin-luther-king-jr-s-famous-i-have-a-dream-speech/?utm_term=.7b438f4fcde9
Why this all is more confusing:
Works do not need a copyright, but if you registered for one, you have it in
case of a lawsuit. That applies to printed works, images like Mickey Mouse, and music. It might apply to digital. But digital historians have a different outlook: Share knowledge for the common good. Free sharing of ideas for educational purposes on the web is ideal (hence Creative Commons), but a
scholar might want a copyright of a dissertation. Ethical
historians will attribute the work to you, but can everyone be trusted?
Work can be disseminated more quickly on the web than in print, and technology also allows the alteration of works in ways not conceived of by their creators.
A blatant example of copyright infringement is demonstrated when a web page is set up with the purpose of allowing someone else's music, videos, or software to be distributed and downloaded without the owner's permission. https://www.hawaii.edu/infobits/w2001/copyright.html
Work can be disseminated more quickly on the web than in print, and technology also allows the alteration of works in ways not conceived of by their creators.
A blatant example of copyright infringement is demonstrated when a web page is set up with the purpose of allowing someone else's music, videos, or software to be distributed and downloaded without the owner's permission. https://www.hawaii.edu/infobits/w2001/copyright.html
SOME KEY CONCEPTS (from a non-lawyer)
- Better to ask permission than forgiveness if you want to use something copyrighted
- Cite works/photos/images/music and attribute what is not your own work
- Limitations -- on what you use; best to stick to small snippets or phrases
- Time limits – copyright extends 70 years after the author’s death in the U.S.; rules vary for other countries (commit following to memory!)http://www.ctevans.net/Nvcc/HIS218/Documents/Copyright%20Chart.pdf
- Fair use – Rozensweig says: "Given the ease with which 'more' can be incorporated into a digital
work, the digital historian risks crossing one of the fair use
boundaries." You can use work if you are not taking the whole as your own. (However, if you are using something copyrighted to illustrate something negatively,
could that backfire?) Says the government: The fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
"Four factors" to consider are: the purpose and character of your use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion taken; and the effect of the use upon the potential market. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ . This site explains fair use for non-profit educational purposes. Basically, you cannot copy entire books and use them unless they are intentionally digitally available. A chapter or two with permission, yes. The specifics: an educational multimedia presentation (such as a website) may include: - Up to 10 percent or 1,000 words, whichever is less, of a copyrighted text work. For example, you may use an entire poem of less than 250 words but no more than three poems by one poet or five poems by different poets from the same anthology.
- Up to 10 percent, but not more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual musical work.
- Up to 1 percent or three minutes, whichever is less, of a copyrighted motion media work—for example, an animation, video, or film image [Note: Like the Disney video]
- A photograph or illustration in its entirety but no more than five images by the same artist or photographer.
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/academic-and-educational-permissions/proposed-fair-use-guidelines/
This still gives the website builder considerable leeway.
- Public domain – basically something that
can be used freely by anyone.
From http://vintagephoto.com/reference/copyrightarticle1.htm The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed on October 1998, changed public domain timelines. The act (strongly supported by businesses with valuable intellectual property about to enter the public domain, such as Disney, and the estates of creative individuals such as the Gershwins) placed a 20 year moratorium on materials entering the public domain. "The effect is to freeze January 1923 as the date prior to which materials lapse from copyright protection and enter the public domain." (Should we expect an avalanche of scholarly works soon?)
Worldwide, laws have been created which
criminalize the circumvention of DRM, communication about such circumvention, and
the creation and distribution of tools used for such circumvention. Had no idea DRM existed.
OTHER EXAMPLES OF COPYRIGHT
1. On the Zapruder film: The term “citizen journalist” was coined to describe ordinary people recording or reporting. Abraham Zapruder was filming President Kennedy’s motorcade in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, with a home-movie camera when the president got shot. He sold the film to Life magazine. The footage he took is the most complete film of the assassination. It has been used in other films. After years of ownership and hassles with news organizations, in December 1999 the Zapruder family donated the film's copyright to the museum at the Texas Book Depository near the scene, as well as one of the first copies from 1963 and other items Life once held. Seems that they realized history belongs in museums, not in anyone’s private possession to make money off of it. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-does-the-zapruder-film-really-tell-us-14194/
"All material, including film, text, and
image, on this site are copyrighted. No film, image, or text on this site may
be reproduced, copied, or duplicated for any purpose whatsoever without the
express written permission from the rights holders. The rights to WSLS films
and scripts are held by the University of Virginia. The rights to all WDBJ
films in this collection are held by WDBJ-7 (Roanoke, Virginia)
This site is
intended for educational and research use by scholars, teachers, and students
of all levels. Teachers, students, and scholars are encouraged to use this site
for in class demonstration as well as for research projects." As a student, I am confused that a website created using images that themselves may have copyrights is copyrighted.
3. It is all about money. Royalties can bring in a lot, about $3 million a year for Harper Lee, author of “To Kill a Mockingbird." She almost lost her copyright and fought her agent in court, claiming he diverted her take.
https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/08/harper-lee-dispute-royalties
After her death in 2016, Lee’s estate moved to block publication of cheap paperback
copies of the book but approved posthumous projects, including a tourist attraction that she herself probably would have scoffed at.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/arts/harper-lee-dies.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/arts/harper-lee-dies.html
ON MUSEUMS AND COPYRIGHTS:
1. Reston - copyright at bottom on home page;
unclear whether website builder holds it
2. Loudoun – copyright symbol also bottom of
home page. Nice site except for yellow background in
lower part. Could not link to Alphagraphics Loudoun. Wanted to learn if they copyrighted any of the graphics.
3. Fairfax – This government page, like
others, includes a logo and “official” links prominent, besides the museum
info. Click on the word Copyright and get All content © 2018 City of Fairfax,
VA. All rights reserved. Implies that nothing can be used from website, but no
details. All the government websites are like this.
4. Colonial Williamsburg - Click on the tiny C symbol at bottom of
home page and get linked to a section about the award-winning website and products.
CW is big business.
This site puts the fear of the law into you. Do Not Mess With Us.
Click on Terms of Use and you learn that all website
content and images can used for personal and educational use, not commercial.
Intellectual property section: All Content is owned by CWF or its licensors.
“CWF retains all rights, including copyrights, and the rights comprised in
copyrights, in and to the Content. Copyright and other proprietary rights may
be held by individuals or entities other than or in addition to CWF, and when
this is the case, ownership will be identified. Many of the trademarks, service
marks, and logos (collectively, "Trademarks") displayed on the Sites,
including WILLIAMSBURG and COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG, are registered and/or
unregistered marks owned by CWF. The Trademarks of third parties may also be
displayed on the Sites, and when this is the case, ownership will be
identified. By displaying Trademarks on the Sites, CWF does not grant any
implied license or right to use such Trademarks. The prior written permission
of CWF or the third-party owner is required to use any Trademark displayed on
the Sites. Any unauthorized use of the Trademarks or any other Content, except
as authorized in these Terms and Conditions, is strictly prohibited.”
There are also disclaimers – limitation of
liability, which IN ALL CAPS SHOUTING LETTERS -and indemnification of anything
or anyone who works for CW and puts something on the site. Message: Basically,
if you use the site, know that they did their best to keep it current and
factual, but if they did not, don’t bug them.
5. Manassas – Copyright and Legal. CivicPlus Content Management System © 1997-2017 CivicPlus. All rights reserved. All content © 2006-2017 City of Manassas and its representatives. All rights reserved.
Accessibility and Copyright link says (en
ends) all rights reserved, after listing all the software and browsers and
assistive technology you can use to
see the site. This is the only site as far as I can tell that emphasizes
its accessibility to persons with disabilities, and that it complied with
Section 508 of the American with Disabilities Act.
6. Alexandria Archaeology –tiny
copyright symbol at bottom of page government site. https://www.alexandriava.gov/Legal goes to this:
You may freely reproduce and distribute, for
personal or nonprofit use, any original content on a site produced by the City
and not protected from you by password or other security method. In no case may
you reproduce or distribute material in such a manner as to misrepresent the
City's authorship or purpose of publication, or in any way that violates any
applicable law. Any information provided to the City through a City website, or
through electronic mail, shall be the exclusive property of the City and the
City shall be entitled, unless restricted by law or otherwise noted when you
provide the information, to use such comments or information for any purpose
whatsoever without notice, consent, or compensation to you.
7. Cold War Museum – private museum. Does not
mention copyright. Emphasizes that external links to other sites are not their
problem. If you read about the backgrounds of people who are on the board or
contribute to the museum, you see that many were military or CIA or other agency
spies. Seems like they want you to disseminate their worldview. Why worry about
rights?
Other museums to add to the list:
1. Fredericksburg Area Museum https://famva.org/
No info except copyright word. This is a
pretty new website, looks like it has some problems with user-readability. Some
parts not pretty. A good learning tool.
2. Not local, but my hometown: Reading Public
Museum explains its policy clearly in non-lawyer
language, unlike some other sites. Click on
for: WEBSITE CONTENT IS PROTECTED BY LAW. The
data, images, software, documentation, text, video, audio, and other
information on the Websites (the "Materials")
are proprietary to The Museum or its licensors or other third parties. The
Museum retains all its rights, including copyright, in the Materials. Copyright
and other proprietary rights may be held by individuals or entities other than,
or in addition to, The Museum. Any
unauthorized use of the Materials or the Trademarks (defined below), except as
permitted by these terms and conditions, is strictly prohibited.
FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
Google books
posted my master’s thesis (not copyrighted), and an acquaintance found it because her class was looking at the
decline of afternoon newspapers (yes, there used to be such things in working-class towns).
It doesn’t
look like anyone is buying it, but if they did, Google would make money, not
me. It’s 406 pages. If you try to buy it, it says no versions are available and
takes you to Amazon books about survival (thanks to search engine). Haha. I
survived writing the thing. I don’t even
have a complete copy. I’d buy one if I could, but probably cannot afford it. The
only copy I know of is at the University of Maryland.
For the record, everything in it was original or attributed. (Again, Google and Amazon, big corporations, win.)
Another
brush with copyright: When I worked as an editor for a print publication, we
had to check whether political cartoonists and illustrators had a copyright. Payment was $10 to $50 per use if they did. Some were syndicated, so free. We were urged to use free ones.
As a
newspaper staffer, work I did for the paper became property of the paper. When
I left and freelanced for the same newspaper, I was asked to sign agreements
that gave up my rights to anything published. They paid me once (not
much) and subscribers to their international news service could republish work. That wasn’t
a problem until I learned that the newspaper sold photos I took as a freelancer.
Photos were not in the agreement I signed. I asked to have them removed from
the photo archive. However, one photo I took as a freelancer (above) still appears almost yearly
in the publication. I don’t have time to fight it. They attribute it to me. That's all they legally need to do.
FINAL PROJECT UPDATE
I plan to do a story map using www.arcgis on some historic Loudoun County cemeteries. There are almost 200, but I will aim for 15 to 20. There will be a county map with pinpoints to each, a photo taken by me at each (unless a good one can be found online), and a paragraph on why each is historic, including notable people buried there. Sources will include the Balch Library cemetery database, books, and contacting the county's historic cemeteries committee, cemetery caretaker groups or churches. This map can be expanded in the future with information on more cemeteries, categories such as Revolutionary War soldiers, Civil War monuments, and inconography. Above right is my first photo of Ketoctin Baptist Church (taken by Cecouchman in 2013).On volunteer forest service projects, I have done conservation and preservation work at cemeteries in New Hampshire. When I visit places in other countries, I look for cemeteries because they are quiet and often very beautiful. Our link to history is through people now gone. Epitaphs and carvings on gravestones give us clues to their lives and times. Even plantings and landscapes tell us about history.
HELP! Following the blogs of all my fellow students, but it is not showing up here. Can't add the gadget/widget.
