Version préparatoire des recommandations issues du colloque “Scholarly Publishing and the Issues of Cultural Heritage, Fair Use, reproduction fees and Copyrights”, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, 11 janvier 2008.
Publishing practices in the sciences and the humanities are rapidly diverging. The sciences are increasingly moving toward forms of international e-publishing, leaving behind the world of traditional print publications. At present, the humanities are ill-prepared to adopt new publishing practices championed by the sciences, in spite of the potential these new practices offer for innovative scholarly work in the humanities and sciences alike.
Scholars in the humanities, especially those concerned with images, face a bewildering array of restrictions. A confusing patchwork of policies regarding access to images, image reproduction, and cultural heritage citation is hindering new research and publication in the humanities.
For a variety of reasons, many museums, libraries, and image repositories restrict access to digital image collections. For instance, curators fear fraud and false attribution if they allow open access to their image and cultural heritage repositories.
To promote creative scholarship in the humanities and to foster a deeper understanding of cultural heritage, curators and scholars must work together in new ways. Put simply, what’s needed is a policy of open access to visual sources not covered by copyright.
The following recommendations address challenges faced by researchers and curators of image repositories alike. The aim of this document is to establish a Network of Trust in the Digital Age.
1. To clarify terms of copyright, intellectual property, and physical ownership rights concerning objects in the public domain
2. To provide assistance to scholars negotiating access with cultural heritage repositories
3. To explain scholars’ needs to museums, libraries, and other repositories
4. To explore how institutions may allow scholars greater access to images
5. To establish practices that enable institutions, scholars, and publishers to form mutually beneficial relationships
* Respecting Copyright and Intellectual Property
* All countries distinguish between the physical property of an object (image, text, art work) and intellectual property. Only the latter is protected by copyright. Rights of physical property are regulated by a contract between the owner and the user. Ownership rights should not be confused with intellectual property rights, even when the object in question is unique.
For Curators of Museums, Libraries, and Image Repositories
* Museums, libraries, collections, and private owners of objects of cultural heritage must always respect the difference between the intellectual property and the physical property of the objects they hold. Repositories should define access to cultural heritage objects solely as owners, not as copyright holders. Owners, for their part, should not unduly restrict the public domain. Instead, they should recognize that they, too, as owners of objects in the public domain, exercise responsibility for cultural heritage. Owners should also be aware that scholarly publishing safeguards against misuse and/or misappropriation of objects. Through cooperation with humanities scholars, the holders of objects gain recognition as custodians of culture.
* Museums or collections should seek to cooperate with non-commercial image archives specializing in open access for educational purposes.
* If museums, libraries, or other repositories outsource digitization to companies, their contracts with vendors should stipulate the terms of scholarly use. As regards scholarly access, museums, libraries, and image repositories should negotiate reduced fees, or waive fees altogether, for scholars.
* Institutions should consider distinguishing between academic or commercial use by some standard other than print run. Rather than counting copies, they could consider content. Rules for the scholarly use of objects should apply equally to both print and online publications.
* Scholars deserve access to information about reproduction rights and permissions – particularly if the repository in question has outsourced the management of reproduction rights to a third party.
* Scholars need high resolution files, for work both on- and offline.
* Scholars should be aware that preconditions to the use and re-use of objects in the public domain are negotiable. Restrictions to cultural heritage items derive from ownership rights, not intellectual copyright. Access to objects, images, or texts is defined by individual owners’ decisions and individual contracts. Scholars must respect that the owners of objects incur costs in making objects available to humanities researchers.
* Scholars have an obligation to attribute as accurately as possible. The scholar’s responsibility does not end with the intellectual property of an object. Scholars must also behave responsibly toward the owners of the physical objects, images, or text they use. Correct attribution is part of each scholar’s contribution to a relationship based on trust and mutual benefit.
– Scholarly Use: Using and re-using digital images of cultural heritage items for scholarly publications, i.e. printed works as well as online and e-publications. Scholarly use should not be defined by print-run or hits, but solely by content.
– Intellectual Property: Immaterial content of an object, text, or image.
– Public domain: A “commodious domicile for intellectual property that is no longer protected by copyright” (Susan Bielstein).
– Copyright: Protects the intellectual property of an object, text, or image during the life time of the author plus (at minimum) an additional seventy years (depending on national legislation).
Tags: colloques, histoire de l’art, illustration, pratiques, propriété intellectuelle
Die Berliner Erklärung ist eigentlich klar genug. Die Empfehlungen gehen zwar in die richtige Richtung, sind aber viel zu weichgespült.
Diesen Blogbeitrag zitieren
Klaus Graf (2008, 28. August). Unzureichende Empfehlungen. Archivalia. Abgerufen am 25. Februar 2024, von https://doi.org/10.58079/bxi0