What concerns me is that this case may have a chilling effect on
obtaining photographs from museums. When it comes to pictures of their
artifacts (like manuscripts), they pretty much control all photos (in
most cases by prohibiting photography in the library or museum), but
willingly sell them to all comers, stipulating that they retain
copyright over the photos (eg, you have to receive, and usually pay for,
permission to use it in publications or on the web). If they think they
will lose copyright over those photos once sold, they may stop selling
them, which would be disastrous for academia.
The only odd thing in this case is that the Bridgeman company who
had the transparencies (slides) had obtained them from (or took the
pictures at?) the museums who owned the artifacts, presumably with
permission from the museums or libraries in question. Some contractual
arrangement must have been made (at least in some cases) such that
Bridgeman had the right to either take the photographs of the items or
distribute the slides possessed by the museum. Was any of that
considered in the case?
Karen
--
Dr. Karen Jolly
Associate Professor, History
University of Hawai`i at Manoa
[log in to unmask]
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kjolly
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|