 |
 |
----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Dear colleagues, I would like to thank those who drew my attention to the fact that Greg Most is the ARLIS/NA representative at the CONFU discussions on the educational use of digital images. I would also like to thank Katherine Poole and Hinda Sklar for reminding me (and us) that the Public Policy Committee is eager to receive comments from the membership on this issue. Having said that, I would also like to register my considerable displeasure at the flip manner in which Mr Most has elected to respond to my serious and, I think, legitimate concerns. He writes: "Gee, Max, you have missed a lot of the fun already but it is never too late to catch up!" I am, of course, pleased that Mr Most has found the CONFU discussions "fun" but I frankly resent the implication that I (or any of the ARLIS membership) need to "catch up" with an issue that has engaged our profession's attention for quite some time. Ultimately, of course, being patronized in this manner is unimportant. What is, however, terribly important is the educational mission we serve, individually and as a profession, and so I am frankly alarmed that our representative in these important discussions regards our relationship to alleged copyright owners (incomprehensibly) as analogous to that of "teenagers" and their "parents": "Rights holders are given more protection under the guidelines because that is exactly what they are; the person or organization that hold the copyright of an image. Remember when you were a teenager and your parents let you drive their car. They set the rules and conditions. If you wanted to use the car you followed them. If you didn't and were caught doing something you shouldn't have, there was some form of retribution. On the other hand, in addition to the rules, they also wanted you to help out and use the car to run errands that would benefit the family in general. Instead of paying for the gas and maintenance like you might have, they let you use the car, maintaining it themselves, even letting you use it for longer than you had agreed." Mr Most adds: "That was not the best analogy but it is my poor attempt at making the issues we soon will face a little more clear." It is indeed not the best analogy. It not only does nothing to clarify the issues at stake but, in my opinion, represents a regrettable and unacceptable capitulation to the interests of other parties in the CONFU discussions. I do not doubt that, as Mr Most writes, "The balance of weight in the guidelines has steadily been shifting from rights holders to users so that no, the guidelines are much more balanced than they were in the first drafts." Unfortunately that's not saying much: the guidelines remain hostage to interests that conflict with our own mission and should not be endorsed by ARLIS/NA. For this reason, the Yale Library (among others) has recommended that the guidelines not be endorsed by the Association of Research Libraries, which, like ARLIS/NA, is represented in the CONFU discussions, and which seems to take its members interests--and, by extension, those of the population they serve--seriously. Max Marmor Art & Architecture Library Yale University