A Question for Experts Here

[Richley Crapo]

It's nice to know that I am not alone in wondering about this. The question arose for me when my publisher informed me that he expects his authors to secure copyright permissions for illustrations, but didn't offer any guidelines that cover this question. He's aiming for being in print in 5 or 6 months, and I know from experience, for instance, that the library in Paris that holds the original of Anonymo will reply to my request for images with about a two month turnaround time, and then only to send a billing statement that they will want to have paid before actually making the copies--another two month process. I don't mind paying them to do the work of making a copy, but the time lag being what it is, I would prefer a faster option if one legally exists. So I've begun to wonder whether (1) the fact that the original was written four centuries ago makes it fair game as "public domain" material and (2) whether there is still a copyright interest in facsimile editions of more recent vintage or whether it is legitimate to take one's own copy from such a source, say by doing one's own scan of an image in it. 

I'm still interested in whatever insights others have who have experience in this arena.

Richley 

>>> brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU 02/01/05 07:04 AM >>>
This is interesting. I paid to have photographic images made of some
Mexican pictographic documents housed in the Lilly Library, and they say
that if I ever use them in a publication, I have to pay them a fee of
$100.00 per image. They also charge $100.00 for use of an image in an
exhibition and $15.00 for use in a public or classroom lecture.
Is this passage from 2004 that you cite a change in the law, or has the
Lilly Library been collecting unjustifiable fees?
Also, assuming that the passage cited is not eing taken out of context,
I assume that this applies to images that you obtain directly from the
manuscript or original book. In other words, you wouldn't be able to
reproduce an image taken from a facsimile edition without permission
from the publisher, right?

Galen



SIMON LEVACK wrote:
> Richley Crapo wrote:
>
> <<when the original source is a Nahuatl manuscript such as Xolotl or
> Anonymo where the original is housed in a library, does the library
> typically assert control of all copyright authority so that they are the
> entity that must grant permission or is the several hundred years age of
> such a document place it into public domain?>>
>
> Having wrestled with the same problem I think the answer is that it's in
> the public domain. According to the US Copyright Office
>
> "Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or
> phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides
> that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a
> protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright."
> (US Copyright Office Circular 1, Revised December 2004)
>
> For the full text of the circular, follow this link:
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc
>
> Simon Levack
> Author of the Aztec Mysteries
> Please take a few moments to visit my website at
> www.simonlevack.com
>
>