Suzanne Quigley wrote:
 
>>> But the point I wanted to raise, had to do with intellectual property
rights and copyright.  If the Enola Gay didactics were to have been scanned
and put up on the net for all to see, would this have been a violation of
copyright? Intellectual property rights?  I think it is a wide open
question.  Those labels were the fruit of someones intellectual efforts.
Do those labels belong to the individual(s) even if not published?  Or to
the SI (and by extension the amurican taxpayer)?  Anyone got any thoughts? <<<
 
My experience, having worked at SI, is that anything you create while at
work--IE: part of your job that you are being paid for-- belongs to SI (and I
think this is true of non-federal agencies, too).  So, for example, if a major
publisher offered the curators etc. who wrote the exhibition script $$$ to
publish it, the contract would not be solely with the author, but instead with
the institution.
 
Lisa Falk
[log in to unmask]