query about copyright
Janice Pilch
pilch at UIUC.EDU
Tue May 30 17:48:13 UTC 2006
Dear Anna,
Thanks very much for your message regarding the copyright
query on lubki. I just want to say that the information you
received from the Getty Museum, as you presented it in this
message, is not entirely accurate. It's always difficult to
consider every aspect of copyright when faced with one
question. But it is not uniformly the case that 70 years
after the death of an artist, their artwork becomes public
domain. That is true for a work created in the U.S. by an
individual artist after January 1, 1978, but it is not true
for works created or published before then. Also, other types
of works (works of corporate authorship, works for hire,
anonymous works, pseudonymous works) have different copyright
terms. And foreign works have to be treated more carefully
because there are many other considerations when determining
the copyright status. See charts by Laura Gasaway and Peter
Hirtle:
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain
.htm
You are right about the difficulties people face in finding
images to use in publications. But the information you
received about black-and-white v. color images is misleading,
becauseit is never really that simple. The statute does not
speak to use of a black-and-white image or a color image. The
answer to a question on whether a use violates copyright has
to be found in the law, or one needs to rely on precedents in
case law.
I think the person was trying to say that use of a color
reproduction will more likely violate copyright than use of a
black and white reproduction. It’s true that a black and
white reproduction, as a low-resolution reproduction, a
thumbnail, a smaller version of a work, etc. will more likely
be considered a fair use than color, high resolution, full-
size, etc. because it’s not attempting to compete with the
original work. But it is not true that any use of a black and
white image will be considered fair use, either. It always
depends on the situation, and it is always advisable to
assess all four fair use factors to reach a conclusion on the
status of the use: purpose of the use, nature of the work,
amount of the work being used, and effect of the work on the
market or potential market for the work.
I just felt it was important to clarify this, so that people
don’t assume that there are black-and-white rules! I think
it's very good that you brought this up, it really helps the
discussion. I also want to mention that someone from the
listserv contacted me to recommend the University of Chicago
Press website on copyright:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/infopage.html
I also like the site of the Stanford University Copyright and
Fair Use Center: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
And the University of Texas site is well known for being one
of the best:
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/cprtindx.htm
The following book was also recommended: William Germano,
Getting It Published: A Guide for Scholars and Anyone Else
Serious about Serious Books (University of Chicago Press,
2001). To it I will add Kenneth D. Crews, Copyright Law for
Librarians and Educators: Creative Strategies and Practical
Solutions, 2d ed. (Chicago: American Library Association,
2006), and Stephen Fishman, The Copyright Handbook: How to
Protect and Use Written Works, 8th ed. (Berkeley, Calif.:
Nolo, 2004)
All the best,
Janice
---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 07:19:50 -0400
>From: Anna Wexler Katsnelson <wexler at FAS.HARVARD.EDU>
>Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] query about copyright
>To: SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>
>This has been a truly helpful discussion.
>Here is some more information I found from the Getty
Institute when faced
>with the issue of wanting to publish reproductions in an
academic journal:
>
>70 years after the death of an artist, their artwork becomes
public
>domain. The tricky issue is where you get the images you
want to
>reproduce. If these are taken from a book there is no
problem. However, in
>terms of legally reproducing something, it all gets much more
>complicated. For example, when you need a high quality
photograph or
>transparency, which you can only usually get by contacting
the museum
>directly or to the art agency that represents the estate of
the artist.
>You could contact the Hermitage, say, and ask for a
transparency
>(the best way to reproduce for publication), and they
>could either lend you one for no cost (if you explain that
it is a
>scholarly publication, etc.) or sell one to you that you
could keep. Your
>second option is to go to a photo agency. Art Resource
>(http://www.artres.com/c/htm/Home.aspx) is an agency that
>represents foreign museums and sells
slides/transparencies/photographs of
>art work. They will only sell these (they do not lend); the
price is
>usually $200. Sometimes the publisher will pay for it but
usually not for
>periodicals. Moreover, if something has been published
before 1923, you never need to worry
>about copyright.
>
>Finally, this is what I heard from a person with a lot of
exprience with
>both images and publishing them: if you are seeking to add a
>black-and-white image there is no concern of fees and
copyright. These
>come into play only when the image is going to be in color.
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++
>Anna Wexler Katsnelson
>Department of History of Art and Architecture
>Harvard University
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> Use your web browser to search the archives, control your
subscription
> options, and more. Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web
Interface at:
> http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
>-------------------------------------------------------------
------------
----------------------------------------
Janice T. Pilch, Assistant Professor of Library Administration; Acting Head, Slavic and East European Acquisitions; Librarian for South Slavic Studies, Baltic Studies, and Slavic Languages & Literatures
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801
Tel. (217) 244-9399
More information about the SEELANG
mailing list