Forum Moderators: not2easy
One of the websites I maintain has some images and historical data on an object from Australia.
Apparently little info on this exists in Australia, so some Australian Library emailed and asked my permission to Print Out the Web Page and include it in their paper collection.
I said sure.
Did not hear from them for....maybe a year.
Recently I just got another email, I'm pretty sure it is from the same Australian Library.
This time, the request was for my permission to SCAN THE WEBPAGE THEY HAD ALREADY PRINTED OUT AND THEN UPLOAD IT TO THEIR *NEW* ON-LINE COLLECTION AS A JPG FILE!
?
They don't want to link to the original webpage, because for some " Librarian Reason™ " the web collection must mirror the paper collection.
This benefits their patrons somehow.
And they needed MY PERMISSION since I am the copyright holder on the original source material that the "paper version" was derived from.
my head asplode!
I assume that you are a commercial site, and they will be a competitor?
Matt
They asked for permission to copy some copyrighted material, and you said yes. They then asked to do something else that would require your permission. You can now say no.
What everyone pushes around here is that you should ask permission. So now someone is bothered when a librarian does just that? I don't get it.
Personally, I can think of many reasons that they would have to not want to link to the original *in the place of* having it in their own collection.
What many people don't realize is that a library's primary job is to archive information. Making it available for use is an important secondary function, but it is still secondary to the job of archiving and ordering.
Pointing to your website does not create an effective archive. You could disappear tomorrow and a porn site could replace your site. They then lose the resource and they unknowingly link to a porn site.
I would recommend that you either simply say "no thank you" or you try and work out a deal that you can both live with.
Just remember that the person that you are dealing with has a different set of priorities, and that they did ask for permission, so you should treat them with respect for that.
Actually, it sounds like it is in order, and perfectly acceptable.
you are correct.
What everyone pushes around here is that you should ask permission. So now someone is bothered when a librarian does just that? I don't get it.
sorry, perhaps I mis-typed. What I found incredibly ironic and idiotic was that they wanted to put the ORIGINAL WEBPAGE back on the web, but the existing webpage (mine) was not sufficient. It HAD to be a SCAN of what THEY printed out!
What many people don't realize is that a library's primary job is to archive information. Making it available for use is an important secondary function, but it is still secondary to the job of archiving and ordering.
I understand that.
Pointing to your website does not create an effective archive. You could disappear tomorrow and a porn site could replace your site. They then lose the resource and they unknowingly link to a porn site.
I do not disagree.
Just remember that the person that you are dealing with has a different set of priorities, and that they did ask for permission, so you should treat them with respect for that.
actually I did.
First I told them that in order to get to the part where I give them permission, they would have to listen to me rant for a minute about how insane I thought it was to :
Print out a web page
Scan it.
Post it as a JPG to be "available" to their patrons.
when the original web page was still available (and should be for some time, it is a non-profit)
I even offered to send them the original images and html for that page so they could host it if they wanted in its original format, but they declined and just want to post the scanned copy they printed, which has buttons and other links for more information that will not work or be accessible for the end viewer.
However- after taking a sample tour of their website and navigating down to the place this file would be stored, I highly doubt anyone would ever come across it.
I DO understand that the needs and objectives of Librarians are different than those of regular folks, I still find the methodology to attain those objectives to be incredibly convoluted at times.
Although I granted them permission I was very tempted to NOT allow them to post the Scanned web page BACK on the Interweb...it just seems wrong.
They were not interested in Archiving the information in its original format.
all parties involved are non-profits.
there is no commercial value in any of this.
Although I'm not quite clear on what you thought they should do? If they didn't post their scanned copy while the original was still on the web, would that mean they'd have to keep an eye on every webpage they had archived to know when it was offline? They just want the information, not the links.
--------------------
What BigDave said. The (U.S.) Library of Congress has exactly this kind of program. There's a short thread on it here:
[webmasterworld.com...]
Or you can read about it at the LoC website:
[loc.gov...]
They're spot-on about needing your permission as copyright holder. Also, as BigDave stated, this kind of cataloguing is for a permanent collection, so linking to the webpage wouldn't work.
As it is, in the USA and depending on what the library juistiction, they could quite possibly make the online archive of their offline content without getting permission. (which is one of the reasons that they would be going with an image)
A state college library, for example, they have not only the library coverage in the copyright law, but also archive and educational fair use coverage. And to top it off, you cannot sue them for damages in federal court, only injunctive relief, and copyright suits MUST be in federal court.
Although I'm not quite clear on what you thought they should do?
I'm not making a recommendation on what they should do.
It is not my place to dictate how a Librarian should go about archiving material.
I was just stunned when they told me what they were doing. I'm not used to this.
This is almost on par with the guy who wanted "high resolution" pics for a magazine article, but he did not know how to deal with attached files on emails.
I was going to send him higher quality image files than the ones on the website so he could have good print quality in the magazine.
later he emailed me back and told me he "solved" the problem:
He took a picture of his computer screen with his 35mm camera.
He sent the roll of film to the his editor and everyone was apparently happy.
again: my head asplode!
Actually, the LoC information is not appropriate to this situation, as it is in Australia.
A state college library, for example, they have not only the library coverage in the copyright law, but also archive and educational fair use coverage. And to top it off, you cannot sue them for damages in federal court, only injunctive relief, and copyright suits MUST be in federal court.
I don't think the university, or the Library of Congress, are necessarily worried about being sued. I think they're just trying to do the right thing and possibly being a bit overly cautious in the process.
---------
One guess (and that's all it is) about the reason they'd want to use a scanned image of the printed page instead of a different format is that they want an exact cross-match between the two archiving systems. They're not going to want active links, since those are all temporary, so the scan effectively "deactivating" them would be a positive, not a negative. They're thinking of people using this info 50/75/100 years down the road. If the "for more information" link led to a page with information they thought was valuable, they'd archive that page, too, not rely on the link.
1) Let them put up the scanned image on their website, as a scanned IMAGE
(NOT OCRed to text) This is important. Duplicate content and all that.
2) Ask for a link back to the original on YOUR site, as a straight honest straight html link,
(no redirect nonsense). This could be in small print after the image.
A free quality library link! I'll bet Google loves those. I wish I had more of them.
-Larry
At the university where I work (private rather than state-run, but I don't think that would matter), they are extremely careful when it comes to fair use. One copy means one copy--not one faxed copy and another one via email.
Actually the private/state owned distinction makes a huge difference in the law, but not necessarily the attitudes of the librarians.
Most librarians are very much in support of copyright law, including bot restrictions and Fair Use rights.
They do not want to abuse the system, as they want the creators of the works to be able to make a good living and continue to produce their works.
On the other hand, they will do everything they can to battle to maintain Fair Use as it is intended. They do not want the definition narrowed down till it is almost useless.
There are continuing discussions going on in their journals and at conferences, about the need to continue using the Fair Use rights that they have, and not ask permission, for fear that it would imply that permission was necessary.
And since State owned educational libraries are the ones with the most rights and protection under the law, they consider it their job to keep Fair Use from shrinking.
I certainly was not implying that they would be infringing on copyright because they were more difficult to sue.
I don't think the university, or the Library of Congress, are necessarily worried about being sued. I think they're just trying to do the right thing and possibly being a bit overly cautious in the process.
Actually they are worried about being sued. But you are right, that mostly they are just trying to do the right thing. That includes asking permission when it is required, in in many cases, specifically not asking for permission when it is not required.
In the example of making an online archive of their offline content, could very well be a case where it would be covered by fair use. And *if* it is covered by fair use for the institution, then they might be served the best by not asking for permission.
was going to add, but I waited too long, that IMHO being overly cautious regarding citizens' personal rights is not a bad thing for a governmental or other public body. I'd much rather have that than the opposite.
But you are not talking "personal rights" you are talking about a granted monopoly that is actually limiting the rights of the public.
It is actually the librarians that are fighting to maintain the peoples rights from the branches of government that are being bought off by the media companies.
But you are not talking "personal rights" you are talking about a granted monopoly that is actually limiting the rights of the public.
