At 11:36 PM 1/21/98 -0500, Wayne Hart ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>I encountered a situation recently which I am not sure is usual or unusual
>practice.  A volunteer at an institution assembled material including a
>list of objects and photographs of those objects and compiled them into a
>comprehensive reference.  He then copyrighted the reference in his own
>name.  Some photographs are public domain, some from private sources and
>some in the institution's collection.  The volunteer maintains a web site
>in the institution's name but lists himself as the contact for copyright
>permission.
>
>Is this common practice?  Are there legal and ethical conflicts?
>
>Wayne Hart, Executive Director
>Museum of Valor

There are at least three issues that Mr. Hart should take up with his
attorney:

1) In general mere compilations of facts are not copyrightable.  If in the
list objects are associated with facts which are readily accessible and
show no originality in their assembly or order, then, according to the
Feist decision (regarding the White Pages of the phone book), their is no
copyrightable content. If the list is derived from non-published museum
data he may not have had the right to publish it even if it is copyrightable.

2) If this individual is listing himself as the owner of the copyright of
photographs to which he has no copyright interest in, i.e. copyrighted
images belonging to the museum, then (I don't know which law applies),
there may be a misrepresentation of copyright, which is an infraction.

2a) It is possible to license public domain images that are in the public
domain, but you cannot claim copyright in them.

3) It would be interesting to investigate the nature of the "volunteer"
status in your museum and others.  Museums should be careful to have
volunteers stipulate that they will not claim any copyright or patent in
works which derive from their volunteer efforts.  While volunteers, they
should understand that they are working for the museum, not for themselves.
Accordingly copyrighted materials created by volunteers should be
considered "work for hire" as defined in the copyright statute.  Employers
own the copyright of such works. (If I remember correctly, copyrighted
works made under "work for hire" rules can be claimed by the maker after 30
years.)

4) You might also investigate whether the list (presumably of museum
objects) breaches any confidentiality understandings.  If not, that is, if
the objects listed in the information on them are generally available to
the public, the museum may not prevent the list from being posted, but, if
information appears which was obtained in confidence, there may be other
actionable recourses available.

As stated above, this is not a legal opinion, but just issues that you may
wish to take up with your own attorney.

But... what about this situation:  A scholar receives permission to
research a topic in the museum and is given access to accession files,
archives, the library and the photograph collection.  At the same time he
volunteers to arrange that portion of the archives he is studying.  If the
scholar is given access to confidential materials, I presume that he needs
permission to publish their content. But once given, the resulting
publication (despite the volunteer work) is under his copyright, including
charts, graphs and lists compiled (unless arrangements to the contrary had
been made).




=================================
Robert A. Baron
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.pipeline.com/~rabaron/