Is the image the property of a library?

General copyright-related issues and discussions

Moderators: kcleung, Copyright Reviewers

baroquecello
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:36 am

Is the image the property of a library?

Postby baroquecello » Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:50 am

It seems that everyone has different opinions on things when it comes to copyright....

Recently a musicologist I know told me that she wanted to use certain images from books from the 18th century, preserved only in one library (I think it was a Danish library). She requested permission to use these images and was allowed to, but only if she would pay 600 Euros per reproduced image, which ofcourse she could not do, since her book has a rather small amount of potential readers and it is unlikely that she will make any profit with its publication anyway.

The question is, how come that with a work like this which is in the public doman, libraries have the right to charge money for its usage/reproduction? What I understand from this is that one could only reproduce a document that one owns himself, or for which one has been granted permission.

That would probably mean that you could publish a self made score of a certain work made after a reprint, so publish the actual information, but not the image of the original itself, where the library that holds the print can lay claims on.

Do any of you know anything about this?

carmar1791
active poster
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:24 pm

Postby carmar1791 » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:55 pm

I can answer you only for all about Italy.I'll tell you what practically happen.
You can ask a copy of what you want (you pay only the cost of photocopy or photos).

The Italian law (art 107 and 108 Codex of Cultural Goods) say that " libraries etc can allow free reproductions for personal use or (art.108) for public institutions that enhance or promote the product" , but for commercial use you have to pay a fee. For P.D. items too.


Problems arise when you get copies of "unique items" (manuscripts principally) from friends teachers etc.
You have not signed a contract with libraries (or owners they came from)and from a theoretical point of view they are public domain....
In any cases you have to pay attention only when you use it for commercial use.

Greetings

Carmar
Last edited by carmar1791 on Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Yagan Kiely
Site Admin
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:16 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Postby Yagan Kiely » Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:03 pm

Copyfraud is what it is.

Vivaldi
active poster
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:54 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Malaysia

Postby Vivaldi » Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:54 am

It is definitely copyfraud. Just because PD works are kept in libraries doesn't mean that they can charge for their usage.

baroquecello
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:36 am

what exactly do you mean by copyfraud?

Postby baroquecello » Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:15 am

?

Leonard

horndude77
active poster
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:08 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Postby horndude77 » Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:14 am


davidp_newton
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:08 pm

Postby davidp_newton » Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:11 pm

Are they claiming the fee based on copyright or on their ownership of the physical object though? Libraries are perfectly free, subject to national laws to the contrary, to charge fees for access to materials they own.

Vivaldi
active poster
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:54 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Malaysia

Postby Vivaldi » Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:30 am

Would the library's access fee be similar to some service charge or maintanence fee, irrespective of the copyright status of the materials being kept in the library?

SeanMartin
forum adept
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:55 am
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Re: is the image the property of a library?

Postby SeanMartin » Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:38 am

If I may interject more mud on the waters, the issue with images is that usually someone had to photograph it. The copyright isnt on the content of the image, but the *photograph* of the image. I know, it sounds idiotic, and it is. But sadly that's the (fuzzy) reasoning.

Yagan Kiely
Site Admin
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:16 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: is the image the property of a library?

Postby Yagan Kiely » Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:52 pm

Does Google copyright Google Books? They are, after all, photographed and not scanned (in the conventional sense)?

horndude77
active poster
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:08 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: is the image the property of a library?

Postby horndude77 » Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:55 pm

Google is in the US so the 'sweat of the brow' doctrine applies and they cannot copyright their scans (or photographs) of public domain material. IMSLP's public domain page indicates that this is true in the US, Canada, EU, and most of the world (but this is in doubt in light of the recent wikipedia legal threats).

Reading back through the thread I don't think the libraries were actually claiming copyright. So it probably wasn't copyfraud. (Maybe they were, but it wasn't stated). It seems they felt that they were entitled to be paid for non-personal use of items in their archives. The Italian situation mentioned earlier in this thread also is a strange one which make the libraries' sense of entitlement legal. Odd. Italian government/politics is weird anyway.

I'm anxiously waiting to see how the Wikipedia vs. National Portrait Gallery situation turns out. This is where the library actually is claiming copyright. It seems exactly the same as the bridgeman case. From what I understand the difference is that the legal case will take place in the UK where the legal situation is murkier. I don't know how that even works since Wikipedia and the uploader are both in the US where they broke no laws.

Yagan Kiely
Site Admin
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:16 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: is the image the property of a library?

Postby Yagan Kiely » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:02 pm

It's more or less the equivalent of copyfraud, much like EULAs in software get around certain Copyrights.

Google is in the US so the 'sweat of the brow' doctrine applies and they cannot copyright their scans (or photographs) of public domain material. IMSLP's public domain page indicates that this is true in the US, Canada, EU, and most of the world (but this is in doubt in light of the recent wikipedia legal threats).
So photographs of paintings are the same? Does anyone know if sweat of the brow works in Australia? Be very interested (I'm involved in the copyright of my uni's upcoming music label - to be Creative Commons).

SeanMartin
forum adept
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:55 am
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Re: is the image the property of a library?

Postby SeanMartin » Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:10 am

I know that if you go to some of the museum sites, you'll find a copyright notice watermarked (discretely) into them. The French and English, in particular, do this, something I first noticed when researching medieval art for a project. When I asked how anyone could claim "ownership" of an image of a twelfth century manucript, that's when I learned about the photography loophole.

Punch
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:57 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Re: Is the image the property of a library?

Postby Punch » Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:35 pm

The "primary" use of an hitherto unpublished image as an accurate reproduction of a two-dimensional original item, such as a music score, provided by a library may be subject to the holder's or owner's terms of condition.

The re-use of an already published image will not require any permission, if the original is in the public domain (which usually means that its authorship has legally expired). The accurate reproduction by photographic techniques does not comprise any creative action as in the photography of three-dimensional objects. It is just craftsmanship, not more.

Dr. Heinz Anderle, Austria

vinteuil
Groundskeeper
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:01 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Is the image the property of a library?

Postby vinteuil » Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:25 am

Well put.
Formerly known as "perlnerd666"


Return to “Copyright Related”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests