JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ARCHIVES-NRA Archives


ARCHIVES-NRA Archives

ARCHIVES-NRA Archives


ARCHIVES-NRA@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARCHIVES-NRA Home

ARCHIVES-NRA Home

ARCHIVES-NRA  June 2008

ARCHIVES-NRA June 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Self service photography from microfilm

From:

"Padfield, Tim" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Padfield, Tim

Date:

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:10:47 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (152 lines)

Digital copies are posing problems in all sorts of areas, as we all know. The government's review of copyright, conducted by Andrew Gowers, recommended that because private copying of music is so rife it would be better to amend the law to allow private copying rather than to continue to watch the existing law being flouted. The music industry has been the one facing the consequences of piratical copying up till now, and its response has been, eventually, to make legitimate digital supply easier and cheaper, and apparently the policy is working. The film industry has yet to adapt in the same way.

Self-service fair dealing copying in archives is entirely legitimate, though the record offices must protect themselves by giving clear advice to users on what the limits of fair dealing are. Fair dealing certainly does not allow a user to post his or her digital copies on the internet, so if the records are protected by copyright it is an infringement for a user to do that. Some users will wish to obey the law, while others, especially once they have gone overseas and are out of the jurisdiction of the UK courts, will not care. Unfortunately, if the mighty music industry has failed to prevent infringing activity there is no prospect of archivists being able to do so. The music industry solution has been to offer better legitimate services than are available illegitimately. Users find that it is worth paying a small amount to get the better service. If archives wish to minimise the damage caused by the posting of bootleg copies they need to follow the same course: offer better legitimate services.

However, I recognise that this is a copyright-centric view, which takes no account of the practical and financial obstacles.

Tim

------------------
Tim Padfield
Information Policy Consultant
Information Policy and Services Directorate
The National Archives
Kew
Richmond
Surrey TW9 4DU

Tel +44 (0)20 8392 5381
Fax +44 (0)20 8487 9219

Websites http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
               http://www.opsi.gov.uk



-----Original Message-----
From: Archivists, conservators and records managers.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Aidan Jones
Sent: 13 June 2008 08:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Self service photography from microfilm


<<-----Original Message-----
From: Archivists, conservators and records managers.
On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
Sent: 12 June 2008 17:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Self service photography from microfilm>>

<<At Lancashire, when  we piloted self-service digital photography, we
decidede then not to allow readers to take "screen shots" with their own
cameras from the readers. However, we are now being asked by readers to
allow this, claiming that they can get good quality results which they can
manipulate yto allow them to read the image more easily than they can on
the reader ... We can see no obvious legal or conservation reason to
maintain our current position ( except possibly on microfilms of records
held elsewhere) and, I would appreciate the views of other supporting either
point of view.>>

<<----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shawcross Kath" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Self service photography from microfilm>>

<<We've only had one person ask to photograph microfiched which I allowed at
no charge. We don't charge for readers photographing archives either ... I
think one argument against this has nothing to do with copyright/ownership
but my management and definitely members saying I should be making money off
the reader/printer.>>

*********************************


When first asked, I was initially a bit sceptical as to whether satisfactory
digital photos could ever be taken from a microfilm reader.  However, when I
tried it myself experimentally, the results certainly seemed to be
reasonably OK - at least once the flash had been turned off to prevent
reflections.

Kath refers to the possible loss of revenue (presumably to recoup the
investment in microform readers - amongst other things).  To take her final
point a stage further, I expect that sooner of later it will become very
difficult - or virtually impossible - to prevent many such digital images
being posted on the Internet.  So long as they are reasonably legible, the
images won't necessarily need to be of the highest quality.  There are
doubtless many people who are either ignorant of any issues of copyright
(and even less of any undertakings given by record offices to depositors),
or they are largely indifferent to them. Quite commonly, there are reports
of writers and photographers who have discovered their work posted
without acknowledgment on websites on the other side of the world - often
with somebody else's copyright stamp having been added.  Many musicians and
recording artistes protest about the amount of their work which is being
illegally copied or downloaded, but their success in preventing it is quite
limited.  Are other organisations really likely to be significantly more
successful?

Already, I've noticed the suggestion being posed on one international
genealogical discussion group:  "I frequently see digital cameras being used
in record offices. Most of us have them nowadays. Why are they not being
used on parish registers? Would it be too expensive to use them for this
purpose, and put the resultant images on the web?"

Of course, it's not just a question of income from reader-printers.  If the
amount of privately-posted images grows substantially, it wouldn't much help
those offices which already sell images on microform, or who (like the
National Archives, and like Greater London  http://tinyurl.com/68m2gu)
have their own ambitious plans for use of digitisation and Internet
expansion.  Pirate copies (if that is the right term) wouldn't necessarily
all need to be on one large site.  A substantial number of images posted on
a lot of smaller sites - doubtless with their own internal systems of
links - could produce much the same effect.

The question which seems to be increasingly widespread amongst potential
users in certain quarters is not so much "what are you doing to make it
easier for us to visit your searchroom", but rather "what are you doing
about getting your most popular sources onto the Internet - so that we don't
ever need to visit your searchroom?"  Maybe there are a few offices who
would not be particularly worried about falling numbers coming through their
doors.  But for others, such a trend could ultimately lead to many
difficulties. Digitisation may seem very attractive to many users in the
short term. Looking to the longer term, it could lead (at least sometimes)
to increasing difficulty in getting the necessary resources for making
available those records of less immediate appeal. That could be particularly
true if the office was receiving less income due to the quantity of
competing images otherwise available on free sites.  And smaller services
would quite likely have fewer resources for campaigning against any such
losses of income.

So what should be done?   A whole reel of film could presumably be copied
within a few minutes. Ban large-scale digital photography?  Such a move
might be presented as trying to protect services for the longer term.  But
any ban would generally become harder to sustain if not paralleled
elsewhere. Well, like Bruce Jackson, I'm not offering any instant judgments.
With regard to allowing images from microfilm, Bruce has invited comments on
either side - that's fair enough. But it seems to me that the issue of what
subsequently happens to those images is extremely closely interlinked, and
that once the initial question has been raised, the whole debate then needs
to be widened.

I too would appreciate the views of others - supporting either point of
view.

Aidan Jones

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________


Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Archives Disclaimer


This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential  to The National Archives.  If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments.  In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments.  Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager