According to David Condon:
> >
> > 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?
>
> You are right. They are probably subject to copyright. U.S. Government publica
ti
> ons
> are in principle not copyrightable, but there are all kinds of exceptions and
> loopholes to that rule. The Smithsonian is not an organ of government in the
> strict sense (I looked it up: if I remember correctly, the U.S. Government
> Manual sez it's an "Independent Trust Instrumentality") and the Smithsonian's
> books, recordings etc. _are_ copyrighted, as we all know. Copyright also gives
> the holder a right to _prevent_ publication if that is their choice.
>
Don't know about the copyright issue, but
the exhibit scripts are likely to be considered part
of the SI 'records' and are therefore accessible via Freedom of
Information Act.  Staff were paid as part of their jobs to
develop these scripts for an exhibit.... I doubt there are any
avenues to claim intellectual property -- especially in working
for SI.... State agencies (outside the university structure)
are subject to many of the same issues/restrictions & there are
very few avenues to exempt work done as part of a staff
member's job from Freedom of Information Act regs.
 
--
Paisley S. Cato, Ph.D.                          e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Curator of Collections                          phone:  703-666-8634
Virginia Museum of Natural History              fax:    703-632-6487
1001 Douglas Ave., Martinsville, VA 24112