The way that I interpret their statement is that they are not necessarily
saying they own copyrights to the specimens (because they would not be able
to under British Law) but instead are trying to control all photography of
the specimens through contract law. (The photography, not the specimens
would be copyrightable, by the way.) By having people sign their statement,
they are setting up a contract which sets up some controls of the
photography, possibly transferring all copyrights to the museum. If a
photographer then publishes this photography without proper permission, they
would be breaking a contract. This would then be a case for contract law
and not copyright law. If a photographer does not sign this form, and were
somehow still able to photograph, they would have the freedom to publish
their images because they would own copyrights to the photography.
Commercial publication of specimen or object photography from a museum can
be a big revenue generator. It would be in the museum's best interest to
control all photography of their collection. It is also important to
carefully balance this control with proper educational and scholarly
access...
Alan Miller
Photo Archivist/ Rights and Permissions Coordinator
Seattle Art Museum
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Stevens [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 9:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Specimen and image copyright issues
[see her original message for the full text. Deletions are shown by
"..."]
-----Original Message----- From: Sally Shelton
<[log in to unmask]>
... Date: April 15, 1999 04:58
Subject: Specimen and image copyright issues
>I have posted this from correspondence sent by Lynn Kimsey and
cross-posted
it to NHCOLL-L.
>
>In 1998 the Natural History Museum (London) instituted a new
regulation
regarding its collections, which prohibits the image recording of
any of its
specimens or specimen label data by photography or digital imaging,
unless
an institutional permission statement was signed and fees paid every
time
the image was used. The Museum is in essence declaring that the
museum
holds copyright to each specimen and associated data.
...
===================================================
My comments:
COPYRIGHT - It appears that the Natural History Museum (London) is
copyrighting specimens that they did not create. The copyright
action does
seem excessive but its legality would depend upon the copyright laws
of the
UK. In Canada the basic premise is as I understand it that the
CREATOR may
copyright something, and then only for a set period of time(s).
MUSEUM REPLICAS - Replicas based upon museum specimens are common
and
appropriate if done with permission, credit, and clear markings to
indicate
that they are replicas. It is reasonable I feel for a museum to
control
photography in a gallery or storage area for reasons of
conservation,
security, safety and comfort of other visitors etc. Years ago a
senior staff
member advised me that the Canadian War Museum had the problem of
someone
photographing an old military chest in the museum, and then using
these
photos, the people manufactured and sold replicas of the chest
without the
museum's knowledge or permission. If a museum owns an item, but
did not
create it, does that give them copyright on who may reproduce it?
If an
archives or museum owns a print, or even an original negative of a
photo,
but did not create it, do they have any copyright? Most claim
copyright,
but is it appropriate? I do feel that it is reasonable that they ask
for
fees related to copying (cost plus a profit margin) and a credit
line, but
beyond that?
Colin Macgregor Stevens
Museum Curator
Burnaby Village Museum
City of Burnaby, BC, CANADA
(604) 293-6500
Business: [log in to unmask]
Museum Webpage:
http://www.burnabyparksrec.org/villagemuseum/villagemuseum.html
Personal: [log in to unmask] Military living history personal
web-site: http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net
|
