Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Crown Copyright applies to things which the government owns copyright - tithe maps where not produced by the government so no there is no crown copyright.
The owner of anything can restrict or charge for its use or copy it and most record offices ask you to sign a copyright form for material which is out of copyright and charge you for the priviledge.
The Freedom of Infomation Act 2000 paragraph 1
Access to information held by public authorities
Right to information
1 General right of access to information held by public authorities (1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled?
(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.
Simple
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
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!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
[:I] 
Thanks Gog... both informative and made me smile!!
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
I have worked in a few record offices in my time. The general 'Archivist' understanding of commerical gain would be if you were to copy and item and then sell it on i.e. if you took a copy of a particularly nice map and then started producing reproductions of said map and selling them.
Producing copies of maps within a DBA is the Archive providing information. Some archives have limits of the extent of a map that can be photocopied or photographed; others will let you trace an entire map. 'Publishing' in Archive terms usually relates to the number of copies of an item that are to be reproduced. The number of copies of a DBA - less than 10 - which will be produced are so minimal they would generally not regard it as publication.
I do think that archaeologists undertaking research for commercial organisations can with all conscience sign the form in an archive. If you are in doubt say the material you are obtaining will be produced in a report, privately distributed, and X copies will be produced. Some archivists are very down with the kids in archaeological terms and will know what you mean, most will not and most will not have the time for you to stand there and explain it to them. Half the people in record offices - those under 65 - are solicitors' clerks copying deeds and other information for property searches or land law cases and are undertaking commercial work.
One big piece of advice, if you visit an archive frequently bring them some biscuits for the archivists' tea breaks and your documents will start to magically appear.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
That all makes a great deal of sense, hb - wish I'd said it!
And you are spot on with the other commercial users. Archive staff aren't fools - they can see that the users fall into two main categories: the retired carrying out family history, and younger people with files packed full of documents. Often the staff are only too glad to help with something other than tracking down umpteen birth registers.
As always, each institution has its own rules and procedures - take digital photos. Some will let you photograph almost everything, as long as the flash is off, while others will sell you their own photos at extortionate cost (plus all the grades inbetween).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Some excellent advice from everyone, which largely said what I assumed was the case and I'll be able to sleep more easily now!
The one thing that perhaps makes it more pertinent at present is OASIS - when reports are just sitting on the shelves of one or two offices I can't imagine anyone would even notice they had reproductions of maps in them, but now they are on the interweb and anyone with broadband can download them, and, if they have the right version of Acrobat, cut bits out and paste them into other things, it's a potentially more of a problem.
As for archivists being happy when you turn up to do a DBA because it's not just more family history, I tend to find the opposite. Although that may be because I start filling out piles of request slips as soon as I arrive and keep them busy all day! Must remember the biscuits.
Be wary of family history researchers though - I had some terrible touble with one chap while carrying out research into a building (as part of a lottery bid) that his family had owned. He insisted on looking at the report and commenting on it endlessly, and ultimately refused to let me even quote from his research because he didn't agree with my theories about the building (even though I begrudgingly admitted that he was right all along)! The notion of bias in family research and its usefulness in DBAs - another topic anyone, No? Hello...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by RedEarth
The one thing that perhaps makes it more pertinent at present is OASIS - when reports are just sitting on the shelves of one or two offices I can't imagine anyone would even notice they had reproductions of maps in them, but now they are on the interweb and anyone with broadband can download them, and, if they have the right version of Acrobat, cut bits out and paste them into other things, it's a potentially more of a problem.
I checked with ADS and found (as I expected) that they have anticipated this problem. They say:
...The holdings of the ADS are subject to copyright, and are distributed by us on condition that they are not used for profit or commercial advantage. Every user entering the catalogue has to assent to the conditions; the act of clicking on the relevant text is legally binding. For more on this see our copyright statement. In essence, the ADS has the right to distribute the data, but the people who supply us with the data retain the copyright themselves, and are free to withdraw their data at any time, should they wish to do so.
..which I think means that you have no more right to rip off the ADS than you do the original copyright holder!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
I hadn't thought of the fact that ADS had covered it already, although having a little 'honesty' box to tick that says I promise not to copy anything is not going to stop anyone.
I suppose the bigger issue is that people will actually know the stuff is out there rather than having to search for it, which is the whole point of OASIS of course and a good thing, but it does make the copyright issue a bit more evident to anyone that is interested.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
I am all for wide and easy availability of archaeological data (particularly via the internet). I guess the price one pays for that is that some opportunist might rip us all off.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
Having reports accessible on the web is no different from having them stacked in a box in the HER office (more convenient, I know) in the sense that a plagiarist will always rip off great chunks and re-use them wherever they are, while an honest researcher will only use them as a referenced source, and will be more inclined to check the originals. The problem may be if the unscrupulous use the availabilty of downloadable maps to cut out the necessity for their own staff to visit the record office, thereby saving a day and undercutting the opposition (or costing for a visit, not actually doing one, and ripping off the client). This is currently not possible with the free map sites out there (Old Maps, British History Online) because the quality of the image is so [tragically the software won't let me insert an expletive here, which is a bit ****].
|
