Reproducing old maps in grey reports

[Gog]

Has anyone out there had any problems with the copying and reproducing of historic maps from record offices in grey literature? I don't mean superseded OS mapping, for which there is a licence, but the other stuff (tithe maps, OS maps more than 50 years old etc) for which the copyright is held by the record office, but for which copying is apparently only allowed for non-commercial uses?

[beamo]

I always take the line that grey literature such as DBAs are 'non-commercial' in the sense that they are not going to be sold for profit in the same way that a book might be. Yes, the DBA is part of a commercial deal between the developer and the author of the report, but this is not the same as selling the report for profit.

Of course, it is always a good idea to acknowledge the assistance of the Record Office in providing copies for use in the report.


Beamo

[vulpes]

OS maps are covered by Crown Copyright which expires after 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which it was published. So the record offices can't claim copyright as it's not theirs to have. The rule for non OS maps is generally 70 years after the cartographer's death. Remember Copyright concerns 'intellectual property', your problem may be one of actual physical ownership of the map and relate to reproduction rights. Sorry this is the best I can do, hopefully someone can provide a clearer reply.

[kevin wooldridge]

Another problem may not be so much the question of copyright, but the fragility (or the perceived fragility) of old maps, books and documents. Some record offices seem reluctant to allow photcopying of any source materials.

I have discovered that in such instances a good digital camera (sans flash of course) will often take as good a copy as the local record office, poorly maintained, photcopier anyway. Certainly both the Guildhall Library and the London Metropolitan Archives will allow digital photography where they wouldn't allow photcopying (it also avoids paying the outrageous fees charged for the 'in house' copying service).

Slightly 'off' photos can often be enhanced (at least to an acceptable 'grey' literature standard) with Photoshop or similar software.

[vulpes]

Have to agree with Kevin, a digital camera is indispensable here and of course gives you a colour image which helps bring out the detail and (often) beauty of many old maps, as well as allowing you to take shots at differing levels of detail. Some record offices charge a few pounds for a 'licence' to do this, some don't and a very few don't allow it at all. Best policy is to phone and check before you visit. If all else fails there's always tracing!

[Gog]

Thanks for the tips, but it is not the process of copying I am concerned about, rather the legality. Many (all?) record offices have copyright licences to sign pledging that the use is non-commercial and will not be passed to a third-party - I believe this relates to some arcane EU-wide ruling regarding the use of archive material in commercial contexts (I don't know the details). If archaeologists (and other professional users) are signing these forms, what are the possible repurcussions - should commercial users be using some sort of licence - does one exist - am I flogging a dead horse? There is no guidance from the IFA on this matter.

[vulpes]

This may just be a**e covering. Copyright law is quite clear for original maps, and copyright is not transferrable - it rests with the cartographer or the crown in the case of the OS. Copying of facsimiles or reproductions is less clear unfortunately, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_A...orel_Corp.

[kevin wooldridge]

Not entirely sure either that the 'commercial use' licences we are encouraged to sign are directly concerned with the data held within the archive.

Rather more its to do with the 'value added' to that data as a result of it being archived, the archivists time, the cost of the building/structure in which it is held etc etc. Where public money is involved there is a presumption that 'for profit' uses of a public service, should at least reciprocate some of the costs, in this case, curation.

Its essentially the same argument that suggests developers of sites where archaeology is a factor, should pay for the cost of site monitoring visits by the local authority designated curator. If such charges are legitimate (archive charges, monitoring visit charges, whatever), the archaeologist incurring them should just pass them on to the client (having briefed the client in advance of course that such charges are likely).

[leic]

Original manuscript maps like paintings are not covered by 50 year rule anad museums/libraries etc also claim copyright over reproductions. However, I really wouldn't worry about using maps in grey literature just cite the record office as source - showing willing counts. No local government legal dept is going to sue you and its better not to ask record office so they don't actually have a clear policy. They might ban their use just to cover themselves and get back at you for creating extra work. Publishing is an entirely different matter but I have found most record offices waive fees for academic aricles including nationals though i had to pay Belgian national library recently- cost me more transferring the money than the actual fee!! Strictly speaking one should not cite grey literature reports without written permission but what unit director wants to spend their life answering these enquiries all day long. Again with regard to publication it is now wise to get permission for copying illustations even if substantially redrawn or at least show you asked.[8D]

[Gog]

Ta leic, that fits in with my experience - basically there seems to be an informal 'don't ask, don't tell' policy going on.

Two archivists have told me, off the record, that its not a problem - they don't see grey reports as publications anyway. The key thing is to acknowledge and to cite the archive reference.