 |
 |
----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I think we are all "vr people" in the sense that we have a vital interest in the availability of images for our students. In my case, I'm simply too new to the issues to have well-formed opinions on the pros and cons of CONFU specifically. But I greatly value the opportunity to read the views of those of you who are more up on this. -- Dana On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Maryly Snow wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > Gregg, I am not happy with the way your characterize > my opinion. I have no idea why art librarians have not > been discussing CONFU on ARLIS-L, but I can SURMISE that > perhaps they aren't interested, perhaps they think this is > an issue for the vr community. Based on the evidence, I > made an assessment, not a pronouncement. > > I would also like to disagree with your assessment about the > guidelines having or not having the force of law. They are > not law, but the CONFU guidelines will be interpreted by legal > counsel at countless institutions of education and > culture as the guidelines, in exactly the same way that the > classroom guidelines have been interpreted, which is AS IF they > have the force of law. > > You state that the final draft "will be released for discussion > and ratification by the Society". Another way of stating this, > and a more accurate way in my mind, might be "will be released f > or discussion about whether the Society will ratify or not". > > I agree with Max that these guidelines would place an incredibly > deletirous burden on eduational institutions if passed. No one has > to ask permission from a publisher of a book to list the book in > the local library catalog. Why should a slide library have to ask > the publisher of the book, a publisher who did not secure the > reproduction rights, nor paid for those rights, for permission to list > an image from the book on the campus image index? > > Clearly Gregg and I both feel strongly about CONFU, he for > ratification, and me against ratification. We don't know where > the non-vr people in ARLIS stand, and that is too bad. But since > the CONFU guidelines are being devised specifically for thumbnail > images on a campus area network only, perhaps it makes sense > that the vr community is the > group with the energy behind the issue. > > Maryly Snow > UC Berkeley > > > > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > > Gee, Max, you have missed a lot of the fun already but it is never to late > > to catch up! > > > > I have been representing ARLIS/NA at the CONFU proceedings at the > > request of the Public Policy Committee and the Executive Board. There > > has not been a lot of discussion on the ARLIS discussion list perhaps > > because so much has been posted on the VRA list. According to Maryly > > Snow (UC Berkeley) this is because this issue is only of interest to VRD > > members who apparently only respond to the VRA list. I have disagreed. > > I believe this is an issue of interest to all members of the Society. > > > > The Visual Resources Association has been a presence on the > > digital image archives working group for far longer than ARLIS. Kathe > > Albrecht (American University) and Macie Hall (Johns Hopkins University) > > have worked incredibly hard to represent the views and needs of this > > profession and the academic community. Many changes in the > > guidelines' content can be directly traced to their participation in the > > process. > > > > With regard to the content of the CONFU guidelines, The most recent > > draft available for review on the CAA web site has already been > > revised. (View at http://alberti.mit.edu/caa/The_Profession/cei/index.html) > > Another meeting has been scheduled for October 6th after which the > > final draft will be released for the final discussion and ratification by th > > Society. > > > > There have been a lot of misconceptions about the guidelines. Some > > have said that they carry almost the same force as law. This is > > incorrect. They are intended to aid institutions in making decisions on > > how to best digitize their collections, both pre-existing collections and > > future acquisitions. The biggest complaint I have heard about the > > guidelines is that they favor rights holders over users and that what has > > always been considered fair use is said to no longer be in force. > > > > 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 forme 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. > > > > That was not the best analogy but it is my poor attempt at making the > > issues we soon will face a little more clear. Images that are under > > copyright protection may soon be more difficult to digitize and mount on a > > campus system if some rules aren't followed. Artists who create works > > of art, vendors who make slides available, museums that spend small > > fortunes photographing art objects, publishers who reproduce them in > > books, feel that some control needs to be maintained. This is not just a > > monetary thing, with the possible exception of the new (and growing) > > companies that purchase the electronic rights to images from museums > > and existing artists' rights organizations. Museums have long believed in > > making their objects available for study to educators (from grammar to > > graduate schools) and independent scholars at no fee or a reduced fee. > > It is to the advantage of all rights holders to have a more art literate > > society. > > > > A legitimate concern about the guidelines has been the lack of > > addressing what is fair use. While I believe that the principle has finally > > been stated in the guidelines, it does refer one back to the Copyright Act > > in order for the reader to get the proper sense of the principle. Far too > > few members of our profession have actually sat down and read the > > Copyright Act. I don't blame them. Booorrring! It is, however, a vital pa > > of what we as art information professionals use in our daily work. The > > CONFU guidelines are an attempt to help us and our institutions make > > decisions on digitization. For those who have read and observed the > > guidelines through the past year or so, you should have noticed the > > growing acknowledgment on the importance of using digital images in > > education and creating and maintaining a catalogue of images. 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. > > > > Please carefully read the guidelines as posted on the CAA web page. > > Kathe Albrecht's recent posting to VRA-L contains revisions made on > > September 4th. After the October 6th meeting when the final draft is > > complete, it will make reasoned dialogue much more relevant and assist > > the Board in making their decision whether to endorse the guidelines or > > not. I will be happy to respond to comments on the guidelines and the > > process behind them as best I can. > > > > > > Gregory P. J. Most > > Chief Slide Librarian > > National Gallery of Art > > Washington, D.C. > > [log in to unmask] > > > ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Dana Beth phone: 314-935-5218 Art & Architecture Librarian fax: 314-935-4362 Washington University, Box 1061 email: [log in to unmask] St. Louis, MO 63130 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^