Unit 7

Copyright

My Understanding of Major Points about Copyright Law

It is hard to get a clear picture of copyright law, especially knowing that the laws can change and court decisions modify how the law is interpreted over time. Charts like those in Cohen and Rosenzweig’s Digital History (2006, pp. 205-206) are very helpful, but given that their chart was published in 2006, I am concerned I may be misunderstanding changes in copyright laws and decisions since then. I am comparing their chart to the U.S. Copyright Office’s Circular 15A (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf), Duration of Copyright, among other sources.  

For example, Cohen and Rosenzweig’s table on pp. 205-206 indicates that works published between 1923 and 1977 without copyright notice are in the public domain. However, the Library of Congress site (http://www.loc.gov/teachers/usingprimarysources/copyright.html) says that “the absence of a copyright notice does not mean that there is no copyright. Copyright protection exists automatically from the moment of creation in a tangible fixed form, which is generally considered to include electronic form. A notice is not required to protect copyright.” These seem inconsistent. The U.S. Copyright Office helps clear this up for me (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf)--consistent with Cohen and Rosenzweig, the Copyright Office’s circular says that for works already copyright protected by January 1, 1978, those published before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain. If a work was originally copyrighted between January 1, 1950 and December 31, 1963, but did not have copyright renewed for a second term, are also now in the public domain. The Library of Congress says that work created by federal government employees as part of their jobs is in the public domain. If there are restrictions on a work in the Library of Congress’ American Memory collection, the library provides contact information for obtaining permission. 

Works copyrighted after 1922 and renewed before 1978, were given an automatic extension so that their copyright lasts 95 years from the end of the year in which they were originally secured. So these are not yet available in the public domain. However, for those originally copyrighted between January 1, 1950, and December 31, 1963, the copyright renewal is automatic, so the copyright lasts 95 years. The earliest any of these works will be in the public domain is 2045. Apparently, works copyrighted from January 1, 1923 and December 31, 1949 will gradually become part of the public domain—I believe this means that published works copyrighted in 1923 will begin to be part of the public domain on December 31, 2018 (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf). All of this seems consistent with Cohen and Rosenzweig’s table.

The above attempt to summarize the duration of copyright doesn’t even include unpublished works or works created after January 1, 1978. And to make it even more confusing, some organizations may claim that works in the public domain are restricted. For example, Cohen and Rosenzweig (2006, p. 198) note that Corbis puts copyright notices and digital watermarks on public domain images that are in the public domain and free through the Library of Congress.

I think the best policy is to use the tables and Circular 15A for each work one is considering using. Also, given the complexity of copyright law, it is very important for a student, professor, or historian to understand fair use guidelines. If (a) the purpose of a publication or site is not commercial; (b) the work is factual or data, rather than of a more creative nature; (c) one does not use a large amount of the work; and (d) the use of the work is not likely to affect its economic value for the copyright holder, than it is fair to use the work. For example, if a work is no longer in print and not accessible, then it is less likely to affect the economic value for the copyright holder. However, one must be sure to site and credit the use of others’ work, such as photos and text. In addition, attribution (i.e., citation) is not a substitute for the permission to use a copyrighted work. 

Local Museum Sites and Copyright

I did not see a copyright statement on all of the listed sites. Some said copyright 2017 or for a period of years through 2017. Even when they say their site is copyrighted, they often do not provide any other comment about the use of material on their site.

The Loudoun Museum says it is “committed to expanding the digital display of the collection, in a manner that makes it available as a teaching tool for students, teachers and historians around the globe (http://www.loudounmuseum.org/about/mission/). Yet, it also says that images are “available for purchase for private and commercial use” (http://www.loudounmuseum.org/exhibits/archives/). I’m not sure what private use might include. I would think that some older works would be in the public domain so that a user would not have to purchase them.

The City of Alexandria says the entire contents of its websites are copyrighted for 1996-2017 “unless otherwise noted,” but “you may freely reproduce and distribute, for personal or nonprofit use, any original content on a site produced by the City and not protected from you by password or other security method.” 

I would suggest adding www.history.org/foundation/terms.cfm, for Colonial Williamsburg. It has a lengthy Terms of Use page, which would provide a contrast to the less well-funded local museums. Colonial Williamsburg does clearly state that the content on its site can be used for personal and education use—not commercial uses.