Copyright issues

[Tom Parker]

Kipling Will wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I found the earlier mention of copyrights on specimen images somewhat
> troubling. I believe the notion that this kind of data clearly belongs
> in the public domain and at most the copyright of a particular image, if
> used as art, should be held by the artist. It is a value added product.
> Anyway, I have a number of questions that I thought some of the worldly
> and wise readers of this list might propose answers to me for.
>
> 1. Does a museum that claims copyrights to all images of its specimens
> *really* think it has a lean on all the images that have ever been
> produced? How do they plan on policing "misuse" of images?
>
> 2. If I want to describe and illustrate a beautiful new species of
> pterostichine ground beetle does the institution holding the specimens
> then own the copyright to my images? Do I have to pay them or get a
> release to publish on this new species and every time I use these images
> in a talk, poster or publication? What about the data on the label, can
> I publish that without a release? How about those distribution maps? If
> a third party wants to use the image after publication do they need a
> release from both the publication and the museum?
>
> 3. Does the copyright for an image of a Paratype follow the specimen
> when it moves to another collection or does stay with the museum from
> which the loan to image the specimen was made? What if a type on loan
> from one collection is to be placed in another, who get the copyrights?
>
> 4. Even if you took images as good as Piotr's (which are stunning
> indeed) of every single type in The Natural History Museum does anyone
> think any product could be made that would make so much money that the
> museum would be at a loss? I wish we had a lay public so enlightened to
> make that a real issue. There are many "picture books" for carabid
> groups, I don't see any of the authors getting rich.
>
> 5. What is the point? It looks like plain and simple knee-jerk, poorly
> conceived, bureaucratic nonsense that has nothing to do with the conduct
> of good science or providing better access to public data. It is just
> another layer of red tape that doesn't do anything I can see. Perhaps
> it's paranoia that if too many good images are circulated too widely no
> one will use museum types?
>
> Vented and Cynically yours,
>
> k.will
>
> --
> ---------------------
> Kipling Will
> 2144 Comstock Hall
> Dept. of Entomology
> Cornell University
> Ithaca, NY 14853
> 607-255-1351
> http://henry.ento.cornell.edu/CUIC/will.htm
> ---------------------
> The grand fact of the natural subordination of organic beings in groups
> under groups, which, from its familiarity, does not always sufficiently
> strike us, is in my judgement thus explained.  -Darwin


Greetings:

As I recall, the lawsuit and appeals between a group of publishers
(including AAAS) and Texaco a few years back reformulated copyright
rules. I also recall that Science published several discussions and
explantions of the court's decsions.  Texaco lost the case...actually
their chemist who had xeroxed journal articles was the defendent...and
ownership was reinforced for the copyright holder. An assumption that
information held by museums, institutions, etc are "public data" may not
be valid if there is a copyright for the information.

I don't think the practice of merely acknowledging the source of images
used in republished documents is any longer acceptable if the image is
held under copyright by museums and universities.  This sort of cordial
practice (I suspect) no longer is permitted under law.


bye for now

Tom Parker
<tparker at lacsd.org>