Unlike previous weeks our readings this week were largely focused on a single issue, that of copyright. To those unfamiliar with the complicated nature of copyright laws the issue may seem like a simple one on the surface. Certainly if one is dealing with media that has been created by a major American company within the last five years it is a pretty safe conclusion that the material is probably copyrighted and it will be easy to figure out who owns the copyright. However historians are generally dealing with media that is much older then five years which may or not be subject to current copyright laws.
 |
| Statue of Anne 1710 |
According to our readings, copyright laws have their origin not in a campaign to protect the ownership rights of individuals or private companies, but in government efforts in the 15th and 16th century to control what readings people had access to in 15th and 16th century Europe. Europe at the time was not a democracy and governments were concerned that the rapid advances in printing technology would give people easy access to texts that the government and/or the church deemed heretical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
The first law designed to protect individual publishers was the Statue of Anne which was passed by the parliament of Great Britain and came in to effect in 1710. What is important to note about this early copyright law was its limited definition of copyright compared to US copyright law today. The Statue of Anne granted copyright protection for 14 years for any new book and 21 years for any book already in print. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
The Statue of Anne set the blueprint for Anglo-American copyright legislation. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. By this time the first copyright law had already been passed by in Connecticut by the State Legislature. The first federal copyright law was passed in 1790 and like the Statue of Anne it provided a very limited definition of copyright that extended for 14 years from the date of publication and only covered print media. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf&embedded=true&chrome=true
The change between the limited copyright laws of a few centuries ago and the much more extensive laws of today occurred because publishers and individual authors wanted to more fully control and benefit financially from the work that they had created and/or published. Throughout the course of the 19th century new laws were passed that extended copyright to include more forms of media (ie illustrations). Authors also won the right to renew the copyright on their works after the initial period was up (on top of the they won the right for their children and other family members to extend the copyright). http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/1.php
On top of the increased period ownership, authors/publishers also won the right to extend their copyright claim over dramatic adaptions of their works as well as foreign copies/translations through copyright treaties with other countries. According to the authors one of the most influence people in the fight for extensive copyright protection was none other than Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). He lobbied Congress (1909) for a law that would give an automatic copyright period for the life of the author plus fifty years. Although unsuccessful in his life a law that matched his specifications was passed in 1976. http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/1.php
This new extended period became the new precedent and in the last few decades additional laws have been passed that gave an additional twenty years of protection pass the expiration date on many copyrighted works. The authors show that although none of these copyright laws are permanent, thus not violating the constitutional precedent against perpetual copyright the interests of large companies (ie Disney) have repeatedly lobbied for extending copyright every time profitable works are about to enter the public domain. This pattern could keep a lot of media out of the public domain indefinitely. http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/6.php
On top of this repeated changes to copyright at the federal level combined with copyright laws that have been passed by states make it very difficult for public historians to determine the copyright status of more obscure media. The collection of audio recordings from William Savory is a prime example of how this can be a major issue for public historians. Thousands of recordings made by an innovative radio technician (William Savory) were recently given to the Smithsonian by his son. These recordings include many well known jazz musicians of the 1930s. The drawback is that these recordings have nothing to indicate the date and place where they were made. Adding to this complication is the fact that audio recordings were not covered by federal copyright law until 1971 leaving copyright to the state where these recordings were made; but it is not clear where these recordings were made. This has unfortunately created a seemingly insurmountable copyright dilemma that has prevented these recordings from being widely accessible to the general public. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_trove_of_historic_jazz_recordings_has_found_a_home_in_harlem_but_you_cant/
 |
| Creative Commons Logo |
The other focus of our readings was the website Creative Commons. The Internet has become a unique way for publishers and individual authors to promote their work. As such many individuals and organizations do have an interest in making their work at least viewable online. The drawback is that these same entities are understandably afraid that making their works viewable online could also make them vulnerable to unauthorized use. http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=118
Creative Commons addresses these concerns by offering six different licenses for authors and creating agencies to use. These licenses give Creative Commons users permission to view media but sharply restrict or disallow other uses of the same material. If someone violates the rules set forth in the Creative Commons license the author or creating agency can pursue legal action based on the terms of the license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
The drawback with Creative Commons is that its licenses add more factors into the already complicated matters of copyright law. However, this is arguable made up for by the fact that Creative Commons provides a secure place for authors and creating agencies to attract new audiences for their work. Creative Commons has been successful enough to attract some notable customers to its database. https://docs.google.com/viewer
No comments:
Post a Comment