Hi, I could do with some quick views to advise a UK GLAM institution as to how to make part of their digital archives of images "No copyright known", based on the date of creation of works (a proportion may have year of publication instead). To make this an easy step for the GLAM, there needs to be some evidence of why any date chosen is no risk, or extremely low risk, so that a case could be made to the institution's management; and lawyers.
I'm aware that Google Books ran into a lot of lawsuits for releasing book scans a bit too liberally, while at the British Library there was a very conservative date of 1874 (I think) where everything before than could be considered public domain as a default.
The tricky part is to choose a generic date that can apply regardless of the nature of the item digitized, or its country of creation/publication.
I have created a thread on-wiki at - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#For_an_institution.2... - any links or advice from publications would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Fae
Hi Fae,
Under UK law, the technically correct but unhelpful answer is that no such cut-off exists - because of the deeply silly 2039 transitional rights for unpublished works. You can, of course, advise them to do the sensible thing and ignore this, & the BL's Illuminated MS page is a good example of how to do so: https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/reuse.asp (and a convenient precedent should they want to justify taking the same position)
For published works...
The ARROW study the BL did in 2011 - https://www.arrow-net.eu/sites/default/files/Seeking%20New%20Landscapes.pdf - noted that the extreme cases can be very extreme - during 2010, at least one work from 1859 was still known to be in copyright under life+70, and during 2011, at least one from 1865 - 151 and 146 years since publication. These are both now PD but it demonstrates the challenge of setting a 'safe' hard cut-off. It is quite possible that there is some notionally copyrighted pre-1874 material still out there; that's 142 years, less than these two extremes.
If I was to make a wild guess at the edge of a "reasonable presumption of safety", covering almost the full range of material but leaving off the extremes, I'd say 140 years - work published at 20, lives to 90, life + 70 takes it to 140. This sounds like the 1874 threshold you mention.
The Wellcome published a report looking at digitisation of both print and archive material - http://www.create.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/CREATe-Working-Paper-No.1...
While they didn't use a cut-off for considering books PD - they assessed rights on an item-by-item basis - they did decide to post some material on a "we'll see if anyone complains" basis, and this was given a basic date-triage:
"The WL requests for permission to publish online which did not illicit a response will be made available in three batches – the first, which included titles published up to 1930; the second, from 1930 until 1970; and a third batch, from 1970 up to the present day, which caused the greatest concern to the Wellcome Trust’s legal team. The most recent batch is regarded as most problematic because the rightsholders will almost certainly still be living, and therefore could be more likely to object to publication without permission."
For archive material they took a harder line, and (given the subject material and dates) presumed it all to be in-copyright and requiring consent. This may not be relevant for your situation...
Andrew.
On 9 September 2016 at 10:33, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I could do with some quick views to advise a UK GLAM institution as to how to make part of their digital archives of images "No copyright known", based on the date of creation of works (a proportion may have year of publication instead). To make this an easy step for the GLAM, there needs to be some evidence of why any date chosen is no risk, or extremely low risk, so that a case could be made to the institution's management; and lawyers.
I'm aware that Google Books ran into a lot of lawsuits for releasing book scans a bit too liberally, while at the British Library there was a very conservative date of 1874 (I think) where everything before than could be considered public domain as a default.
The tricky part is to choose a generic date that can apply regardless of the nature of the item digitized, or its country of creation/publication.
I have created a thread on-wiki at - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#For_an_institution.2...
- any links or advice from publications would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
The standard recommendations from Europeana and DPLA is to release content under one of these machine readable license statements, when access or another right may be restricted: http://rightsstatements.org/en/ . The documentation section of that website has two White Papers, which are the consensus among GLAM + copyright experts in this kind of copyright situation on both sides of the pond -- and its specifically designed for the works that we simply, just don't know about or where some type of contract restricts use of the digital object.
With one of these statements, it gives reusers the chance to clearly justify reuse or challenge the GLAM placed license on a situation by situation basis, while reducing the liability greatly for the original institution.
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Hi Fae,
Under UK law, the technically correct but unhelpful answer is that no such cut-off exists - because of the deeply silly 2039 transitional rights for unpublished works. You can, of course, advise them to do the sensible thing and ignore this, & the BL's Illuminated MS page is a good example of how to do so: https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/reuse.asp (and a convenient precedent should they want to justify taking the same position)
For published works...
The ARROW study the BL did in 2011 - https://www.arrow-net.eu/sites/default/files/Seeking% 20New%20Landscapes.pdf
- noted that the extreme cases can be very extreme - during 2010, at
least one work from 1859 was still known to be in copyright under life+70, and during 2011, at least one from 1865 - 151 and 146 years since publication. These are both now PD but it demonstrates the challenge of setting a 'safe' hard cut-off. It is quite possible that there is some notionally copyrighted pre-1874 material still out there; that's 142 years, less than these two extremes.
If I was to make a wild guess at the edge of a "reasonable presumption of safety", covering almost the full range of material but leaving off the extremes, I'd say 140 years - work published at 20, lives to 90, life + 70 takes it to 140. This sounds like the 1874 threshold you mention.
The Wellcome published a report looking at digitisation of both print and archive material - http://www.create.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ CREATe-Working-Paper-No.10.pdf
While they didn't use a cut-off for considering books PD - they assessed rights on an item-by-item basis - they did decide to post some material on a "we'll see if anyone complains" basis, and this was given a basic date-triage:
"The WL requests for permission to publish online which did not illicit a response will be made available in three batches – the first, which included titles published up to 1930; the second, from 1930 until 1970; and a third batch, from 1970 up to the present day, which caused the greatest concern to the Wellcome Trust’s legal team. The most recent batch is regarded as most problematic because the rightsholders will almost certainly still be living, and therefore could be more likely to object to publication without permission."
For archive material they took a harder line, and (given the subject material and dates) presumed it all to be in-copyright and requiring consent. This may not be relevant for your situation...
Andrew.
On 9 September 2016 at 10:33, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I could do with some quick views to advise a UK GLAM institution as to how to make part of their digital archives of images "No copyright known", based on the date of creation of works (a proportion may have year of publication instead). To make this an easy step for the GLAM, there needs to be some evidence of why any date chosen is no risk, or extremely low risk, so that a case could be made to the institution's management; and lawyers.
I'm aware that Google Books ran into a lot of lawsuits for releasing book scans a bit too liberally, while at the British Library there was a very conservative date of 1874 (I think) where everything before than could be considered public domain as a default.
The tricky part is to choose a generic date that can apply regardless of the nature of the item digitized, or its country of creation/publication.
I have created a thread on-wiki at - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#For_
an_institution.2C_can_we_advise_on_a_single_year_ before_which_all_works_are_public_domain.3F
- any links or advice from publications would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
On 9 September 2016 at 12:40, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Under UK law,
[snip]
Andrew, is your very helpful answer written up on-wiki? If not, could I urge to you to do that, please?
If you can figure out where it ought to go, sure, I'll do that this weekend :-)
Andrew.
On 9 September 2016 at 17:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 9 September 2016 at 12:40, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Under UK law,
[snip]
Andrew, is your very helpful answer written up on-wiki? If not, could I urge to you to do that, please?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam