Is the image the property of a library?

[baroquecello]

It seems that everyone has different opinions on things when it comes to copyright....

Recently a musicologist I know told me that she wanted to use certain images from books from the 18th century, preserved only in one library (I think it was a Danish library). She requested permission to use these images and was allowed to, but only if she would pay 600 Euros per reproduced image, which ofcourse she could not do, since her book has a rather small amount of potential readers and it is unlikely that she will make any profit with its publication anyway.

The question is, how come that with a work like this which is in the public doman, libraries have the right to charge money for its usage/reproduction? What I understand from this is that one could only reproduce a document that one owns himself, or for which one has been granted permission.

That would probably mean that you could publish a self made score of a certain work made after a reprint, so publish the actual information, but not the image of the original itself, where the library that holds the print can lay claims on.

Do any of you know anything about this?

[carmar1791]

I can answer you only for all about Italy.I'll tell you what practically happen.
You can ask a copy of what you want (you pay only the cost of photocopy or photos).

The Italian law (art 107 and 108 Codex of Cultural Goods) say that " libraries etc can allow free reproductions for personal use or (art.108) for public institutions that enhance or promote the product" , but for commercial use you have to pay a fee. For P.D. items too.


Problems arise when you get copies of "unique items" (manuscripts principally) from friends teachers etc.
You have not signed a contract with libraries (or owners they came from)and from a theoretical point of view they are public domain....
In any cases you have to pay attention only when you use it for commercial use.

Greetings

Carmar

[Yagan Kiely]

Copyfraud is what it is.

[Vivaldi]

It is definitely copyfraud. Just because PD works are kept in libraries doesn't mean that they can charge for their usage.

[baroquecello]

?

Leonard

[horndude77]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud

[davidp_newton]

Are they claiming the fee based on copyright or on their ownership of the physical object though? Libraries are perfectly free, subject to national laws to the contrary, to charge fees for access to materials they own.

[Vivaldi]

Would the library's access fee be similar to some service charge or maintanence fee, irrespective of the copyright status of the materials being kept in the library?

[SeanMartin]

If I may interject more mud on the waters, the issue with images is that usually someone had to photograph it. The copyright isnt on the content of the image, but the *photograph* of the image. I know, it sounds idiotic, and it is. But sadly that's the (fuzzy) reasoning.

[Yagan Kiely]

Does Google copyright Google Books? They are, after all, photographed and not scanned (in the conventional sense)?

[horndude77]

Google is in the US so the 'sweat of the brow' doctrine applies and they cannot copyright their scans (or photographs) of public domain material. IMSLP's public domain page indicates that this is true in the US, Canada, EU, and most of the world (but this is in doubt in light of the recent wikipedia legal threats).

Reading back through the thread I don't think the libraries were actually claiming copyright. So it probably wasn't copyfraud. (Maybe they were, but it wasn't stated). It seems they felt that they were entitled to be paid for non-personal use of items in their archives. The Italian situation mentioned earlier in this thread also is a strange one which make the libraries' sense of entitlement legal. Odd. Italian government/politics is weird anyway.

I'm anxiously waiting to see how the Wikipedia vs. National Portrait Gallery situation turns out. This is where the library actually is claiming copyright. It seems exactly the same as the bridgeman case. From what I understand the difference is that the legal case will take place in the UK where the legal situation is murkier. I don't know how that even works since Wikipedia and the uploader are both in the US where they broke no laws.

[Yagan Kiely]

It's more or less the equivalent of copyfraud, much like EULAs in software get around certain Copyrights.

Google is in the US so the 'sweat of the brow' doctrine applies and they cannot copyright their scans (or photographs) of public domain material. IMSLP's public domain page indicates that this is true in the US, Canada, EU, and most of the world (but this is in doubt in light of the recent wikipedia legal threats).

So photographs of paintings are the same? Does anyone know if sweat of the brow works in Australia? Be very interested (I'm involved in the copyright of my uni's upcoming music label - to be Creative Commons).

[SeanMartin]

I know that if you go to some of the museum sites, you'll find a copyright notice watermarked (discretely) into them. The French and English, in particular, do this, something I first noticed when researching medieval art for a project. When I asked how anyone could claim "ownership" of an image of a twelfth century manucript, that's when I learned about the photography loophole.

[Punch]

The "primary" use of an hitherto unpublished image as an accurate reproduction of a two-dimensional original item, such as a music score, provided by a library may be subject to the holder's or owner's terms of condition.

The re-use of an already published image will not require any permission, if the original is in the public domain (which usually means that its authorship has legally expired). The accurate reproduction by photographic techniques does not comprise any creative action as in the photography of three-dimensional objects. It is just craftsmanship, not more.

Dr. Heinz Anderle, Austria

[vinteuil]

Well put.