11th May 2008, 09:32 PM
So in most cases where record offices only copy from microfilm or scanned images, copyright still applies. But not Crown copyright, clearly.
RedEarth is worried about the commercial nature of our work - I was told a few years ago in a course run by a senior member of a well-known archaeological organisation to 'just sign the form' - we were advised to think about it, as it was our signature on the form, but we had to get the maps - a classic piece of buck-passing there from the higher echelons (the person was high up in IFA at the time). Where I have 'fessed up the nature of the project to archive staff, they generally haven't seen it as a problem - 'reproduce away' they say, which is decent of them (unless i'm misunderstanding their meaning).
Thats my experience of 15 record offices, folks, for what its worth, and probably reflects the perception of grey reports that are not classed as publications and are not generally regarded as money-making ventures (how right they are). Proper publications are a differnet kettle of fish.
As for Richard's original topic, I don't think anyone really knows when it comes to copyright - as I overhead one archivist say to another recently ' this copyright stuff is a f***ing nightmare' - language, Timothy!
RedEarth is worried about the commercial nature of our work - I was told a few years ago in a course run by a senior member of a well-known archaeological organisation to 'just sign the form' - we were advised to think about it, as it was our signature on the form, but we had to get the maps - a classic piece of buck-passing there from the higher echelons (the person was high up in IFA at the time). Where I have 'fessed up the nature of the project to archive staff, they generally haven't seen it as a problem - 'reproduce away' they say, which is decent of them (unless i'm misunderstanding their meaning).
Thats my experience of 15 record offices, folks, for what its worth, and probably reflects the perception of grey reports that are not classed as publications and are not generally regarded as money-making ventures (how right they are). Proper publications are a differnet kettle of fish.
As for Richard's original topic, I don't think anyone really knows when it comes to copyright - as I overhead one archivist say to another recently ' this copyright stuff is a f***ing nightmare' - language, Timothy!