Support the public domain: Sign a petition
[Dear Readers: Please feel free to forward and circulate the following.] Most readers of this list who have followed the effort mounted to overturn the insidious Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (CTEA) -- an effort supported by the College Art Association -- were gravely disappointed and disheartened (if not surprised) when the Supreme Court affirmed Congress's right to define the length of copyright anyway it likes -- save that it cannot be defined as perpetual. Historians and artists and all creative people depend upon the public domain as a repository of freely accessible ideas and expressions. Unfortunately CTEA has made it clear that the many works of vital interest to the art historian and artist constituencies will be continually swept into the pool of works forever protected by copyright extension. As it now stands, it is impossible to distinguish between works of commercial value and works without commercial value. Lawrence Lessig, who argued the challenge to CTEA before the Supreme Court, has suggested legislation that would serve to divide these two categories of works. Simply put, he suggests that after a fifty year interval subsequent to publication (current copyright is 75 years after the death of the creator), copyright owners and/or their administrators be given the opportunity to renew their copyright by the payment of a small tax, say $1.00 per copyright. This procedure will serve to separate the 98 percent of works of no commercial value from the 2 percent that copyright holders still wish to exploit. Yesterday, an on-line petition was established. By this morning (6/4/03) it had received over 5,000 signatures. I urge you to look at the proposed legislation and consider adding your names to the list. Here are some relevant information resources: Lessig's web-log (blog): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/2003_06.shtml#001254 Latest news about the petition: http://www.eldred.cc/ The Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/eldred/petition.html Thank you all for your help. === Robert A. Baron mailto:rob...@studiolo.org http://www.studiolo.org === Robert A. Baron mailto:rob...@studiolo.org http://www.studiolo.org --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
Re: ARTstor: The Web Site
At 11:01 PM 2/5/2003 +, you wrote: At 16:37 05/02/03 -0500, David Green wrote: materials will only be made available for use by not-for-profit educational institutions, It is perhaps invidious to carp about any initiative which seeks to offer wider access to images but mention of not-for-profit educational institutions raises a wry smile on this side of the Atlantic when some North American 'not-for-profits' have budgets equivalent to the GDPs of some developing countries. The reason seems rather obvious to me. Limiting distribution to verifiable educational institutions controls the likelihood that some distributed images will be challenged as infringements. It seems to me that they are trying to stay well within the limits of the US fair use provisions. That said, such site-licensed distribution systems place scholars and writers who remain outside of the institutional system at a severe and unfair disadvantage. In an era when so many crucial resources are only practical to use electronically from your own desktop, this tendency is unconscionable, and, if I may say it, in discord with the intent of the writers of our constitution. I would hope that once ArtSTOR's concept becomes accepted by copyright owners, they will take the courageous step to venture outside of the educational box to serve the general public. The easiest first step is to publish the catalogue for general use and include, as does AMICO, free access to thumbnail images. The next step is to use the public catalogue as a tool with which to obtain rights to use digital images (just like AMICO) or order high resolution images for private use (just like CORBIS). And, additionally, one would hope that images of use to the general public and scholars, not quite publishable, perhaps, but yet usable by students and others in papers and in other fair-use applications, will become freely available (meaning, without charge). At the same time, images of works in the public domain, available in reproductions that themselves are in the public domain, should be made generally available to the public in publishable license-free versions. After the stinging defeat of the challenge to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, it is becoming clear that those public domain resources that do exist should be identified and be made increasingly available. At the same time fair use must be strengthened at every opportunity. We can congratulate ArtSTOR for what they aim to accomplish, and support them in the hope that the program will be so successful that it will be expanded and broadened along the lines described above. === Robert A. Baron mailto:rob...@studiolo.org http://www.studiolo.org --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
Re: query re MESL
At 09:34 AM 3/20/2002 -0800, Erin Coburn wrote: The MESL pages were taken down from the Getty's Web Site when it went through a re-design back in February of 2000. There are two MESL publications available for order at the following links: http://www.getty.edu/bookstore/titles/images.html http://www.getty.edu/bookstore/titles/deliv.html Erin: Thank you for the references. Too bad however that this historical information, which once was free and which should forever be free (After all whom does it benefit?) has been pulled off the web and turned into a profit enterprise. Acknowledging that its transformation into book form increases its chance of survival and establishes it as a thing done, unhappily by raising the bar of access, it undoubtedly will reduce the number of people who will consult it. Nice covers, though. Robt === Robert A. Baron mailto:rob...@studiolo.org http://www.pipeline.com/~rabaron/ http://www.studiolo.org --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
CAA Amicus brief against Copyright Term Extension
Dear MCN-L Reader (with apologies for cross-posting): This is a call for help from scholars and visual resources specialists in our efforts to overturn the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act now before the Supreme Court. The College Art Association has decided to file an Amicus brief in the matter of Eldred v. Ashcroft, and to argue for a finding that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) is unconstitutional in its manner of extending the length of time works remain under copyright. In our view, CTEA has serious consequences relating to the free exercise of our first amendment rights, and robs the public of the right to use works that were created under a regime when copyright terms were shorter than they are now. The erosion of the public domain that CTEA has caused can be halted if the Supreme Court finds in favor of Eldred. Counsel for CAA, Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise and Plimpton) has prepared a summary of our case and the reasons why it is being filed, and has asked me to refer individuals who seek further clarification to its locaton. It may be found at the following URL: http://www.studiolo.org/CIP/AmicusEldredCAA.htm Time is short: The Amicus Brief must be filed in about 30 days from today, which means that the information we are requesting from scholars must be presented quickly. Mr. Cunard is more than willing to answer questions about this project and to talk to people about their relevant experiences. His email address is as follows: mailto:jpcun...@debevoise.com We need to demonstrate that the Copyright Term Extension Act as now constituted, adding 20 years to the copyright term (now the life of the artist plus 70 years), has been or threatens to be detrimental to your work as scholars, art historians, teachers, writers, and visual resources workers. For this purpose we need to collect a variety of real-world examples drawn from the experience and expectations of researchers and scholars who 1) have had trouble tracking down copyright owners of older materials, which were just to go out of copyright (from the '20s-'40s) until the passage of the CTEA in 1998; and/or 2) have had publishers deny them rights to use such works; and/or 3) have had publishers tell them that they will not publish scholarly work, including third-party copyrighted works that were about to fall into the public domain, unless rights are cleared; and/or 4) were anticipating that works would fall into the public domain, and were hoping to make use of such works until the extension of the copyright term. Any help you can provide in tracking down researchers whose actual experiences can be used to demonstrate the extent to which the CTEA has chilled the creation of expression will be invaluable. Offering up such examples in our brief will highlight the effect of the term extension and make it all the more vivid for the Court, demonstrating that the first amendment chill is not just a theoretical possibility. NOTE: This request not only refers to original works of art that meet the above conditions, but also to copyrighted photographs documenting works of art, even when those works are securely in the public domain. Mr. Cunard's office will talk with those individuals whose stories are the most compelling to verify the details. It's a chance for fame and fortune (assuming that being in an amicus brief is fame), and, more importantly, it's in aid of a good cause. Just send them our way!! Contact Jeffrey P. Cunard mailto:jpcun...@debevoise.com For further information see: http://www.pipeline.com/~rabaron/index01.htm Robert Baron --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
Re: Scholarly Quality Reproductions
to do. But they were her books. The question I'll ask (by way of answering the question) is whether museums (specifically public museums) have the same right to withhold their collections from public use as individuals have rights to control or manipulate the exploitation (including scholarly use) of their objects. Or does a cultural institution, by its very nature, by its mandate to serve the public (they are tax-free after all) have an obligation to allow the use of images of its objects in any and all ways that are consistent with their obligation to protect the objects themselves. If a soap company uses the Mona Lisa in an advertisement to sell face cream, does the Louvre have an obligation to protect the reputation of this work? Or does the museum's obligation end with preserving the work and making certain that accurate images of it are available when needed? Do curators who withhold works from public scrutiny ultimately do a disservice their institutions and their public? The short answer to Patrick's question is that there are lots of good reasons why images of museum objects may not be available for scholarship. The long answer is that there are also lots of bad reasons. Robert Baron raba...@pipeline.com At 07:59 AM 10/13/99 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: Greetings, I saw the announcement concerning the MCN conference (October 27-30, 1999: Philadelphia) on the Humanist list. I attended a conference of scholars working in Ancient Near Eastern studies this past weekend in Chicago and the general sentiment was that most scholars cannot make useful images of texts and artifacts freely available due to restrictions from museums and other repositories. Most of the texts in question would be held on cuneiform tablets or papyri and could hardly be considered to be of any commercial value for advertising (as opposed to photos of a famous person). Since your organization obviously supports the use of technology by museums I may be directing my question to the wrong group but I am curious what reasons (if anyone knows) curators use to justify to themselves (if no one else) prohibitions on freely distributing scholarly quality photos of obviously non-commercial materials. I would also appreciate any insight list members can give on the question of how to go about changing policies that restrict such reproductions. Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Information Technology Services Scholars Press pduru...@emory.edu Manager, ITS === Robert A. Baron mailto:raba...@pipeline.com http://www.pipeline.com/~rabaron/
[MCN-L] Repository of Collections Management related materials
Dear MCN, I seem to recall that in the early 1990s a well-known art library began to collect information related to the history and practice of collections management and automation. Does anyone on this list know of any such collection efforts? I would like to donate my accumulated materials rather than disposing of them. I have four or five boxes of such data including (among other works) Data Models Technical Reports (such as David Bearman's) Systems analyses and projects created for key museums Plans for image projects Advertisements and related ephemera Documentation of conferences and symposia Materials related to intellectual property issues. ...and much more. For those on this list who may not know me, I worked in this field for approximately fifteen years, until about the year 2000. If anyone thinks it useful, they are invited to consult my on-line CV, available http://studiolo.org/cv.htmHERE Feel free to send this notice to other workers in this field. /Robert A. Baron robert at studiolo.org
