Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T08:34:04.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The carrot v. the stick: can copyright be used to enhance access to cultural heritage resources in the networked environment?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Rina Elster Pantalony
Rina Elster Pantalony*
Affiliation:
Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN), 1672 10th Avenue, Apt. 2, Brooklyn, New York, NY 11215, USA
*
Email: Rina_Pantalony@pch.gc.ca
Get access

Abstract

Copyright, if used effectively, managed well and respected in business arrangements, encourages and enhances access to content in the Internet environment. But with the advent of new technologies and the emergence of a knowledge-based society, new ways of thinking are required in order to ensure that the Internet remains a ‘place’ where information can flow with few if any restrictions. Using the modern museum as example, this paper analyzes two types of intellectual property – databases and photographs – to determine whether copyright protection reduces or enhances access. It also touches briefly on some new management models which meet the needs of the users as well as the authors of copyright materials, while still fulfilling the key financial objectives of the organizations that host or provide content.

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , 2000 , pp. 4 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. This paper has been adapted from an article with the same title, originally published in Bearman, David and Trant, Jennifer, eds. Cultural heritage informatics: selected papers from ichim99. Pittsburgh: Archives & Museum Informatics, 1999. Any opinions expressed in this article are strictly those of the author and do not represent the position or policy of the Canadian Heritage Information Network, the Department of Canadian Heritage or the Government of Canada.Google Scholar
2. Ricketson, Sam. The Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works. London: Kluwer Press, 1987.Google Scholar
3. Zorich, Diane. Managing digital assets: options for cultural and educational organizations. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust Publications, 1999.Google Scholar
4. Howell, Robert. Database protection and Canadian laws (state of the law as of June 15, 1998). Ottawa: Industry Canada, 1998.Google Scholar
5. Bearman, and Trant, , op. cit.Google Scholar
6. Pantalony, Rina. ‘Canada’s database protection: an American import takes hold’. Journal of world intellectual property vol. 2 March 1999, p.209–220.Google Scholar
7. Bearman, and Trant, , op. cit.Google Scholar
8. Keshet, Amalyah. ‘Fair use, fair trade, and museum image licensing’. Visual resources vol. XII 1997, p.281–282.Google Scholar
9. Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Services Co., 111 S.C.T 1282 (1991).Google Scholar
10. Tele-Direct Publications Inc. v. American Business Information Inc. (1996) 27 B.L.R. (2d) 1, (F.C.T.D.), appealed [1998] 2 EC. 22 (F.C.C.A), leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada denied 21 May 1998.Google Scholar
11. Rees, Christopher and Chalton, Simon. Database law. London: Jordans Press, 1998.Google Scholar
12. Sandburg, Brenda. ‘Third time may be the charm for database copyright legislation’, http://lasnewsnet.com/stories/A2010-1999June3.html. At the time this article was being updated (June 2000) the Coble Bill had been placed on the Union Calendar No. 212.Google Scholar
13. Bridgeman v. Corel (97-Civ.6232 (L.A.K.)) U.S. District Court, Southeastern Division of New York, 13 November 1998. It is understood that this case will not be appealed.Google Scholar
14. Maurer, Stephen and Scotchmer, Suzanne. ‘Database protection: is it broken and should we fix it?’. Science magazine vol. 284 May 14 1999, p. 1129–1130.Google Scholar
15. Walsh, Peter. ‘Art museums and copyright: a hidden dilemma’. Visual resources vol. XII 1997, p.361–372.Google Scholar
16. Sandburg, , op.cit.Google Scholar
17. American Association of Museums. ‘Copyright case challenges long-held museum assumption’. AVISO February 1999, p. 1–2.Google Scholar
18. Bernstein, Robert J. and Clarida, Robert W. ‘Art reproductions: what’s wrong with this picture?’ http://www.lawnewsnet.com/practice/iplaw/papers/lawfirm/A1481-1999May14.html.Google Scholar
19. Mendler v. Winterland Production Ltd. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit, No. 98-16061, March 14, 2000. See also Elias, Paul, ‘Artist to get damages for scanned photograph’ http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/practice/iplaw/news/A18750-2000Mar15.html Google Scholar
20. Baraban v. Time Warner Inc., S.D.N.Y., No. 99 Civ. 1569 (JSM), 4/6/00. See also ‘Reproduction of photo in commentary is fair use’. IP Law Weekly April 19, 2000 http://www.law.com Google Scholar
21. Bearman, and Trant, , op. cit., p.257–267.Google Scholar
22. Bearman, and Trant, , op. cit., p.257–267.Google Scholar
23. Kornblum, Janet. ‘The internet incubator’. National Post (Toronto) Friday June 11, 1999.Google Scholar
24. Stern, Christopher. ‘Recording industry near deal in suit’. Washington Post June 8, 2000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com). Harmon, Amy and Sullivan, John. ‘Music industry wins ruling in U.S. court ’. New York Times April 29, 2000 (http://www.nytimes.com). Sandburg, Brenda. ‘Sour note for MP3.com in recording industry case ’. The Recorder May 2, 2000 (http://www.law.com).Google Scholar
25. Sandburg, , op.cit., footnote xxiii. Lee, Hane C. and Learmonth, Michael. ‘Spawn of Napster’. The industry standard May 2, 2000 (http://www.law.com).Google Scholar
26. http://www.lcdlib.org Google Scholar
27. Ibid.Google Scholar
28. Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. A sense of place, a sense of being: the evolving role of the Federal Government in support of culture in Canada. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1999.Google Scholar
29. K-12 pupils are 5-18 year olds.Google Scholar