[NHCOLL-L:97] Re: copyright issues

[Doug Yanega]

Peter wrote:

>I read the Copyright Declaration as an intent to retain copyright of the
>*photographs* and *digital images* of specimens and their label and
>associated data, and *not* as a copyrighting of the specimens or data
>themselves.

Right. The statement that the NHM asks one to sign is a formal transfer of
copyright from the taker of the photo (the default copyright holder) to the
Museum. Of course, if one could take a picture of a museum specimen without
signing the transfer statement beforehand, the Museum would have no legal
way to force you to turn over the copyright to them after the fact, should
you choose not to do so.

>Why, for example, did the NHM decide to retain copyright of photos and
>digital images of specimens and (photos of) label data, but not of data
>(e.g., measurements or label data) published in a scientific journal
>where that specimen is described or discussed?

Recall that they are NOT *retaining* copyright - they require that if you
take an image, that you *give* the museum the copyright that you would
normally have. If they want copyright to published data, then they would
have to write a separate document that one signs when visiting their
collection that states "If I publish any data I gather here, the Museum
hereby holds the copyright" - but that wouldn't work cleanly, because (for
example) a list of collection localities is only a small portion of a
published revision, so the Museum could only be a partial holder of the
copyright, not exclusive holder. Also note that since the journal in which
a paper is published is normally the copyright holder, it would be
impossible for the author to *transfer* any copyrights to the Museum, since
they have none to begin with.
        Moreover (as if it wasn't confusing enough), the *actual* copyright
holder of any label's data is the person who created the label, not the
museum which holds the specimen, unless the creator formally transfers the
copyright. A simple analogy to clarify this: imagine if the label data
included a brief haiku ("Found on a flower/This small, fragile butterfly/Is
now immortal"). The copyright to that poem belongs to the author, and
cannot be reproduced, LEGALLY, without the author's permission. Well, it's
the same even if the label just says "USA: CA, Riv. Co./5 km S Hemet/30 Apr
1995 K. Cooper". Content is irrelevant to copyright, and it also doesn't
matter if the specimen and its label were donated to the museum (if a poet
writes a poem on a napkin and gives it to you, the poet still holds the
copyright). The Museum has no legal claim to the label data, regardless.
The only thing that keeps monographic revision work from getting bogged
down in endless bureaucracy is that traditionally NO ONE has ever bothered
to try to enforce copyright law, for the same reason no one screams about
having their e-mail messages quoted and reprinted in part on the net; it
simply isn't worth the trouble, even if it's all technically being done
illegally. Looks the the NHM has decided to break with tradition.

>One might speculate that a photo of a specimen might have some monetary
>value in the commercial market place, and that the musuem wants a cut of
>that action, but how to explain the control of photos of label data?

That one is puzzling, and even more so because of the above comments about
the museum not holding the copyright to the labels. Any specimen labels >50
yrs old (post author death) are going to be in the public domain, for
instance.

Peace,


Doug Yanega       Dept. of Entomology           Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315
                  http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~dyanega/
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82