[MCN-L] IP SIG: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" in its captions

[Amalyah Keshet]

But is it "crediting"?  Or is it a political statement?  How does one credit 
a legal status?  After all, under copyright law, there is no need to declare 
something public domain.  Nothing in a lack of declaration or "credit" 
reduces or harms a work's public domain status.  It would be interesting to 
see the Art Bulletin's "captioning policy now stated near the beginning of 
each Art Bulletin
issue."

At first glance, it seems a bit over the top.  On the other hand, maybe we 
need a bit of over-the-top these days to counterbalance over-the-top 
copyright claims, the chilling effect, and shrinking fair use protections.

Amalyah Keshet
Head of Image Resources & Copyright Management
The Israel Museum, Jerusalem


- Original Message - 
From: "Diane M. Zorich" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:47 PM
Subject: [MCN-L] IP SIG: Fwd: Re: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" 
in its captions


Crediting the public domain (see below) -- what a
great and bold idea.  Kudos to the College Art
Association.  Now will museums follow suit?

Diane



>Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:34:13 -0700
>Reply-To: Visual Resources Association 
>Sender:   Visual Resources Association 
>From: Benjamin Kessler 
>Subject: Re: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" in its captions
>To:   VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>List-Help: ,
>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
>List-Subscribe: 
>List-Owner: 
>List-Archive: 
>X-ELNK-Info: spv=0;
>X-ELNK-AV: 0
>X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
>
>Eileen--
>
>This is a conscious effort on the part of CAA,
>spearheaded by Eve Sinaiko, Director of
>Publications.  Their captioning policy is now
>stated near the beginning of each Art Bulletin
>issue.  I don't think that this has yet become
>common practice for scholarly publications at
>large, so CAA is attempting to set a good
>example.
>
>Ben Kessler
>
>"Fry, P. Eileen"  wrote:
>
>st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
>Colleagues,
>
>I may have missed discussion of this, but is it
>now common practice for scholarly journals to
>credit illustrations with captions that say "In
>the Public Domain" for the work, and then
>copyright for the photographer?  Art Bulletin
>seems to be doing this, but I'm not sure how
>widespread it is.
>
>Eileen Fry
>Indiana University


-- 
Diane M. Zorich
113 Gallup Road
Princeton, NJ 08542 USA
Voice: 609-252-1606
Fax: 609-252-1607
Email:  dzorich at mindspring.com
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer 
Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

[MCN-L] IP SIG: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" in its captions

[Diane M. Zorich]

Amalyah,

Okay, "crediting" was probably the wrong word to use.  My point is 
that noting "Public Domain" in the caption makes it clear to all that 
the original work is in the public domain (and thus freely available 
for copying), although the particular image of that public domain 
work, is, of course copyrighted by the photographer.

Too many reproductions have captions that imply that the 
museum/photographer/gallery owns copyright to the work itself.   Why 
not note "public domain" in the caption, to clarify things?  I don't 
see it as a political statement at all.

You're right in stating that there is no legal requirement to declare 
something public domain.  Under US law, there is also no legal 
requirement to declare something as copyrighted - yet what museum or 
photographer would approve a caption that did not include their 
copyright notice?  They justifiably want to let people know their 
rights.  Why not let the public also know what they have a right to?

I see a public domain statement as a move towards greater clarity and 
less subterfuge in  our increasingly intellectual property-centric 
world.  Clarifying who owns (or does not own) rights is a responsible 
thing to do.  I have noticed an increasing trend among museums to use 
copyright statements that now qualify where the copyright lies, for 
example, "Greek amphora, 25 A.D., Image copyright 2006 The XYZ 
Museum" (italics mine).  I think this is also a positive effort 
towards greater clarity.

Diane

Copyright story of the day: The New York Times article "Is a Scent 
Like a Song?" 
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/fashion/thursdaystyles/13skin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 
about  French parfumiers seeking  copyright status for the scents 
they create from their super-scentsitive noses.




>But is it "crediting"?  Or is it a political statement?  How does one credit
>a legal status?  After all, under copyright law, there is no need to declare
>something public domain.  Nothing in a lack of declaration or "credit"
>reduces or harms a work's public domain status.  It would be interesting to
>see the Art Bulletin's "captioning policy now stated near the beginning of
>each Art Bulletin
>issue."
>
>At first glance, it seems a bit over the top.  On the other hand, maybe we
>need a bit of over-the-top these days to counterbalance over-the-top
>copyright claims, the chilling effect, and shrinking fair use protections.
>
>Amalyah Keshet
>Head of Image Resources & Copyright Management
>The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Diane M. Zorich" 
>To: 
>Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:47 PM
>Subject: [MCN-L] IP SIG: Fwd: Re: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain"
>in its captions
>
>
>Crediting the public domain (see below) -- what a
>great and bold idea.  Kudos to the College Art
>Association.  Now will museums follow suit?
>
>Diane
>
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:34:13 -0700
>>Reply-To: Visual Resources Association 
>>Sender:   Visual Resources Association 
>>From: Benjamin Kessler 
>>Subject: Re: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" in its captions
>>To:   VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>>List-Help: ,
>> 
>>List-Unsubscribe: 
>>List-Subscribe: 
>>List-Owner: 
>>List-Archive: 
>>X-ELNK-Info: spv=0;
>>X-ELNK-AV: 0
>>X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
>>
>>Eileen--
>>
>>This is a conscious effort on the part of CAA,
>>spearheaded by Eve Sinaiko, Director of
>>Publications.  Their captioning policy is now
>>stated near the beginning of each Art Bulletin
>  >issue.  I don't think that this has yet become
>>common practice for scholarly publications at
>>large, so CAA is attempting to set a good
>>example.
>>
>>Ben Kessler
>>
>>"Fry, P. Eileen"  wrote:
>>
>>st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
>>Colleagues,
>>
>>I may have missed discussion of this, but is it
>>now common practice for scholarly journals to
>>credit illustrations with captions that say "In
>>the Public Domain" for the work, and then
>>copyright for the photographer?  Art Bulletin
>>seems to be doing this, but I'm not sure how
>>widespread it is.
>>
>>Eileen Fry
>>Indiana University
>
>
>--
>Diane M. Zorich
>113 Gallup Road
>Princeton, NJ 08542 USA
>Voice: 609-252-1606
>Fax: 609-252-1607
>Email:  dzorich at mindspring.com
>___
>You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer
>Network (http://www.mcn.edu)
>
>To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu
>
>To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
>http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
>
>___

[MCN-L] IP SIG: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" in its captions

[David Green]

I second Diane's point that this kind of statement is clarifying  
rather that political.

There are so many examples of copyright over-reaching, blanket  
copyrights or confusion about what exactly is claimed under the  
copyright notice that this is a decidedly welcome move, I think, in  
the direction of clarity.

Have people seen Susan Bielstein's "Permissions - A Survival Guide,"   
in which for the illustrations not only full copyright status of work  
and image are given, but details of the fee paid - how much, to whom,  
for what.

David


On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Diane M. Zorich wrote:

> Amalyah,
>
> Okay, "crediting" was probably the wrong word to use.  My point is
> that noting "Public Domain" in the caption makes it clear to all that
> the original work is in the public domain (and thus freely available
> for copying), although the particular image of that public domain
> work, is, of course copyrighted by the photographer.
>
> Too many reproductions have captions that imply that the
> museum/photographer/gallery owns copyright to the work itself.   Why
> not note "public domain" in the caption, to clarify things?  I don't
> see it as a political statement at all.
>
> You're right in stating that there is no legal requirement to declare
> something public domain.  Under US law, there is also no legal
> requirement to declare something as copyrighted - yet what museum or
> photographer would approve a caption that did not include their
> copyright notice?  They justifiably want to let people know their
> rights.  Why not let the public also know what they have a right to?
>
> I see a public domain statement as a move towards greater clarity and
> less subterfuge in  our increasingly intellectual property-centric
> world.  Clarifying who owns (or does not own) rights is a responsible
> thing to do.  I have noticed an increasing trend among museums to use
> copyright statements that now qualify where the copyright lies, for
> example, "Greek amphora, 25 A.D., Image copyright 2006 The XYZ
> Museum" (italics mine).  I think this is also a positive effort
> towards greater clarity.
>
> Diane
>
> Copyright story of the day: The New York Times article "Is a Scent
> Like a Song?"
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/fashion/thursdaystyles/ 
> 13skin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
> about  French parfumiers seeking  copyright status for the scents
> they create from their super-scentsitive noses.
>
>
>
>
>> But is it "crediting"?  Or is it a political statement?  How does  
>> one credit
>> a legal status?  After all, under copyright law, there is no need  
>> to declare
>> something public domain.  Nothing in a lack of declaration or  
>> "credit"
>> reduces or harms a work's public domain status.  It would be  
>> interesting to
>> see the Art Bulletin's "captioning policy now stated near the  
>> beginning of
>> each Art Bulletin
>> issue."
>>
>> At first glance, it seems a bit over the top.  On the other hand,  
>> maybe we
>> need a bit of over-the-top these days to counterbalance over-the-top
>> copyright claims, the chilling effect, and shrinking fair use  
>> protections.
>>
>> Amalyah Keshet
>> Head of Image Resources & Copyright Management
>> The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Diane M. Zorich" 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:47 PM
>> Subject: [MCN-L] IP SIG: Fwd: Re: Art Bulletin use of "In the  
>> Public Domain"
>> in its captions
>>
>>
>> Crediting the public domain (see below) -- what a
>> great and bold idea.  Kudos to the College Art
>> Association.  Now will museums follow suit?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>>
>>
>>> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:34:13 -0700
>>> Reply-To: Visual Resources Association 
>>> Sender:   Visual Resources Association 
>>> From: Benjamin Kessler 
>>> Subject: Re: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" in its  
>>> captions
>>> To:   VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>>> List-Help: ,
>>> 
>>> List-Unsubscribe: >> request at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
>>> List-Subscribe: 
>>> List-Owner: 
>>> List-Archive: 
>>> X-ELNK-Info: spv=0;
>>> X-ELNK-AV: 0
>>> X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
>>>
>>> Eileen--
>>>
>>> This is a conscious effort on the part of CAA,
>>> spearheaded by Eve Sinaiko, Director of
>>> Publications.  Their captioning policy is now
>>> stated near the beginning of each Art Bulletin
>>> issue.  I don't think that this has yet become
>>> common practice for scholarly publications at
>>> large, so CAA is attempting to set a good
>>> example.
>>>
>>> Ben Kessler
>>>
>>> "Fry, P. Eileen"  wrote:
>>>
>>> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
>>> Colleagues,
>>>
>>> I may have missed discussion of th

[MCN-L] IP SIG: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" in its captions

[amalyah keshet]

At 17:54 13/07/2006, David Green wrote:

>Have people seen Susan Bielstein's "Permissions - A Survival Guide,"
>in which for the illustrations not only full copyright status of work
>and image are given, but details of the fee paid - how much, to whom,
>for what.

Now there's an idea!  (And definitely a political statement.)  I also 
like those blank image spaces in on-line collections databases that 
are marked "No image due to copyright restrictions."  They are very 
proper and in-your-face at the same time. I think they should also 
say, when appropriate, "No image due to copyright fee of $300" or whatever.

In my museum, I try to twist arms to make our publications clearly 
include and distinguish between artist's copyright and photographer's 
copyright.  This isn't easy, as graphic designers seems to consider 
all these credit lines an annoying aesthetic problem ("looks 
cluttered,"  "looks commercial.")  I can just imagine the cries of 
protest if I asked that public domain works be marked, as well.

On the other hand, as a trained graphic designer myself, I know that 
design is the art of problem solving -- the designer's task is to 
find an elegant and intelligent solution.

At any rate, we label our images "Photo (c) The Israel Museum, by 
Phil Photographer," which I hope is clearly enough read as not 
referring to the object or work of art in the photo. Artist's 
copyrights are listed separately.  Anything that doesn't have an 
artist's copyright credit is in the public domain.  I know that that 
last equation is what opens a window of confusion for the 
reader.  "All works of art illustrated in this publication are in the 
public domain unless otherwise indicated below"  would make things clearer.

Amalyah


>On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Diane M. Zorich wrote:
>
> > Amalyah,
> >
> > Okay, "crediting" was probably the wrong word to use.  My point is
> > that noting "Public Domain" in the caption makes it clear to all that
> > the original work is in the public domain (and thus freely available
> > for copying), although the particular image of that public domain
> > work, is, of course copyrighted by the photographer.
> >
> > Too many reproductions have captions that imply that the
> > museum/photographer/gallery owns copyright to the work itself.   Why
> > not note "public domain" in the caption, to clarify things?  I don't
> > see it as a political statement at all.
> >
> > You're right in stating that there is no legal requirement to declare
> > something public domain.  Under US law, there is also no legal
> > requirement to declare something as copyrighted - yet what museum or
> > photographer would approve a caption that did not include their
> > copyright notice?  They justifiably want to let people know their
> > rights.  Why not let the public also know what they have a right to?
> >
> > I see a public domain statement as a move towards greater clarity and
> > less subterfuge in  our increasingly intellectual property-centric
> > world.  Clarifying who owns (or does not own) rights is a responsible
> > thing to do.  I have noticed an increasing trend among museums to use
> > copyright statements that now qualify where the copyright lies, for
> > example, "Greek amphora, 25 A.D., Image copyright 2006 The XYZ
> > Museum" (italics mine).  I think this is also a positive effort
> > towards greater clarity.
> >
> > Diane
> >
> > Copyright story of the day: The New York Times article "Is a Scent
> > Like a Song?"
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/fashion/thursdaystyles/
> > 13skin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
> > about  French parfumiers seeking  copyright status for the scents
> > they create from their super-scentsitive noses.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> But is it "crediting"?  Or is it a political statement?  How does
> >> one credit
> >> a legal status?  After all, under copyright law, there is no need
> >> to declare
> >> something public domain.  Nothing in a lack of declaration or
> >> "credit"
> >> reduces or harms a work's public domain status.  It would be
> >> interesting to
> >> see the Art Bulletin's "captioning policy now stated near the
> >> beginning of
> >> each Art Bulletin
> >> issue."
> >>
> >> At first glance, it seems a bit over the top.  On the other hand,
> >> maybe we
> >> need a bit of over-the-top these days to counterbalance over-the-top
> >> copyright claims, the chilling effect, and shrinking fair use
> >> protections.
> >>
> >> Amalyah Keshet
> >> Head of Image Resources & Copyright Management
> >> The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
> >>
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >> From: "Diane M. Zorich" 
> >> To: 
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:47 PM
> >> Subject: [MCN-L] IP SIG: Fwd: Re: Art Bulletin use of "In the
> >> Public Domain"
> >> in its captions
> >>
> >>
> >> Crediting the public domain (see below) -- what a
> >> great and bold idea.  Kudos to the College Art
> >> Association.  Now will museums follow suit?
> >>
> >> Diane
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Date: 

[MCN-L] IP SIG: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" in its captions

[Gose, Denise]

I agree with you Diane; I have often wished myself that works known to be in 
the public domain were labeled as such. Our collection database only includes a 
copyright statement when the copyright holder is known. I have often wished 
that there was also an entry for "unknown", and for "public domain", and I will 
lobby for this as we migrate to a new database and eventually make it public. 
This doesn't mean that we might not charge a "Collection Use Fee" for 
reproduction of an image that is unique to our collection, but we would never 
base this fee on any claim of copyright ownership. (of course, it's an easier 
line to draw in a museum of 2-D art)

I also appreciate that more museums are specifying "image copyright". I must 
say it makes me angry to see an image on a museum website labeled "?XYZ 
Museum", when it is clear that the museum does not hold copyright to the actual 
artwork. This is most offensive/misleading when the work is under (someone 
else's) legal copyright. 

Denise Gos?
Rights and Reproductions Manager
Center for Creative Photography
gosed at ccp.library.arizona.edu
www.creativephotography.org
 

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of 
Diane M. Zorich
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:20 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] IP SIG: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" in its 
captions

Amalyah,

Okay, "crediting" was probably the wrong word to use.  My point is 
that noting "Public Domain" in the caption makes it clear to all that 
the original work is in the public domain (and thus freely available 
for copying), although the particular image of that public domain 
work, is, of course copyrighted by the photographer.

Too many reproductions have captions that imply that the 
museum/photographer/gallery owns copyright to the work itself.   Why 
not note "public domain" in the caption, to clarify things?  I don't 
see it as a political statement at all.

You're right in stating that there is no legal requirement to declare 
something public domain.  Under US law, there is also no legal 
requirement to declare something as copyrighted - yet what museum or 
photographer would approve a caption that did not include their 
copyright notice?  They justifiably want to let people know their 
rights.  Why not let the public also know what they have a right to?

I see a public domain statement as a move towards greater clarity and 
less subterfuge in  our increasingly intellectual property-centric 
world.  Clarifying who owns (or does not own) rights is a responsible 
thing to do.  I have noticed an increasing trend among museums to use 
copyright statements that now qualify where the copyright lies, for 
example, "Greek amphora, 25 A.D., Image copyright 2006 The XYZ 
Museum" (italics mine).  I think this is also a positive effort 
towards greater clarity.

Diane

Copyright story of the day: The New York Times article "Is a Scent 
Like a Song?" 
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/fashion/thursdaystyles/13skin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 
about  French parfumiers seeking  copyright status for the scents 
they create from their super-scentsitive noses.




>But is it "crediting"?  Or is it a political statement?  How does one credit
>a legal status?  After all, under copyright law, there is no need to declare
>something public domain.  Nothing in a lack of declaration or "credit"
>reduces or harms a work's public domain status.  It would be interesting to
>see the Art Bulletin's "captioning policy now stated near the beginning of
>each Art Bulletin
>issue."
>
>At first glance, it seems a bit over the top.  On the other hand, maybe we
>need a bit of over-the-top these days to counterbalance over-the-top
>copyright claims, the chilling effect, and shrinking fair use protections.
>
>Amalyah Keshet
>Head of Image Resources & Copyright Management
>The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Diane M. Zorich" 
>To: 
>Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:47 PM
>Subject: [MCN-L] IP SIG: Fwd: Re: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain"
>in its captions
>
>
>Crediting the public domain (see below) -- what a
>great and bold idea.  Kudos to the College Art
>Association.  Now will museums follow suit?
>
>Diane
>
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:34:13 -0700
>>Reply-To: Visual Resources Association 
>>Sender:   Visual Resources Association 
>>From: Benjamin Kessler 
>>Subject: Re: Art Bulletin use of "In the Public Domain" in its captions
>>To:   VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>>List-Help: <http://listserv.uark.edu/scr