----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Peter Hirtle, of SAA, has given me permission to post
> this response of SAA regarding CONFU for digital images
> to the ARLIS listserv. I apologize to all the dual
> VRA-L and ARLIS-L readers.
> Maryly Snow
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Peter B. Hirtle
> > Manager, Digital Access Coalition phone: 607/255-3530
> > 2B Kroch Library fax: 607/255-9524
> > Cornell University e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > Ithaca, NY 14853-5302
> > ______________________________________________
> > All opinions expressed are my own, and not those of my employer.
> >
> >
> > Educational Fair Use Guidelines for Digital Images:
> > Response of The Society of American Archivists
> > to the Draft Guidelines Developed by the
> > Conference on Fair Use
> >
> >
> > The Society of American Archivists (SAA) has been monitoring
> > with interest the work of the Conference on Fair Use (CONFU)
> > to develop guidelines for the fair ue of digital images.
> > The SAA has hoped that the guidelines as they developed
> > would come to respect the requirements and needs of the
> > archival profession. While there has been improvement
> > through the several drafts, the draft version dated 11/6/96
> > is still far from acceptable. Unless radical changes are
> > made to the proposed guidelines, the SAA most likely will
> > not endorse the guidelines, nor will it advise individual
> > archivists to follow them.
> >
> > Archivists manage millions of textual, visual, and
> > electronic records found in a variety of governmental,
> > institutional, academic, and corporate archives. It is the
> > position of the SAA that archival resources should be
> > broadly accessible via the nation's information
> > infrastructure. 1 The SAA would welcome, therefore, fair use
> > guidelines that advance education, increase societal
> > understanding, and simplify the task of making archival
> > material accessible via electronic networks. The proposed
> > guidelines fail to help the archival profession in any of
> > these areas, and work instead against the profession's most
> > fundamental goals.
> >
> > The SAA's general objections are as follows:
> >
> > 1. It is premature to develop fair use guidelines for digital
> > materials.
> >
> > Both network technology and the digital marketplace are in
> > rapid evolution. Consequently, there is a strong likelihood
> > that guidelines established now will prove to be
> > inappropriate for the emerging digital environment, or may
> > actively inhibit the desirable growth of archival
> > information resources on electronic networks. It is the
> > position of the SAA that until the network environment
> > becomes more settled, it is better to follow the principles
> > behind existing copyright law, and in particular the right
> > of citizens to make fair use of material. Documents such as
> > the proposed guidelines, which, under the guise of
> > facilitating fair use, actually create an environment that
> > is restrictive and inhibiting of research and education,
> > should especially be disavowed.
> >
> >
> > 2. The scope of the proposed guidelines is too broad.
> >
> > The draft guidelines appear to have been written with the
> > needs of a very specific community in mind - slide libraries
> > built on commercial products - but the language in the
> > guidelines is exceptionally broad. The title, for example,
> > suggests the guidelines apply to "digital images;" at other
> > points the document talks of "visual images" and "visual
> > resource collections." In archival practice, however,
> > "digital image" covers much more material than is envisioned
> > in the document. A scan of a George Washington letter, for
> > example, is a digital image. The guidelines as written
> > suggest that an archives would need to identify and secure
> > from the owners of the copyright in that letter permission
> > to make the scan available - an impossible task.
> >
> > In addition to holding billions of textual documents that
> > could be converted to digital form, archives are major
> > repositories for "visual images" and "visual resource
> > collections." Millions of analog images are found in the
> > visual collections in archives. These images are frequently
> > unpublished or are without attribution, and are still
> > technically under copyright. Much use of the material can
> > be made under existing fair use guidelines, but the draft
> > guidelines as written would make similar use of digitized
> > versions of these images impossible.
> >
> > At the very least, the draft guidelines should be retitled
> > and restructured to accurately reflect their true narrow
> > scope: the digitization of fine art and architecture slide
> > libraries builproduced, copyrighted material.
> >
> > 3. The guidelines may become the de facto definition of
> > acceptable fair use.
> >
> > While the guidelines concede that there may be uses that
> > exceed the guidelines and yet still constitute fair use,
> > nevertheless, it is likely that the guidelines if adopted
> > will become the maximum acceptable use (much as the CONFU
> > guidelines limit most library photocopying). It is
> > imperative, therefore, that when fair use guidelines are
> > issued, that they be as comprehensive as possible. The
> > draft guidelines neither help solve the very real management
> > problems of archivists responsible for millions of visual
> > images, nor do they facilitate the use of these images in
> > education.
> >
> > There is great danger that these guidelines, drafted to
> > assist a small, specific community, may be widely applied to
> > other research materials, to the detriment of research and
> > education.
> >
> > 4. The proposed guidelines needlessly restrict the
> > definition of fair use.
> >
> > The proposed guidelines often needlessly inhibit, rather
> > than enable, fair use of copyrighted material. The
> > guidelines, for example, suggest time frames during which
> > repositories can seek the permission of copyright owners to
> > continue to make digitized materials available
> > electronically, and "remind" their audience that permission
> > must be sought simultaneously with digitization. There
> > should be no automatic time limit on the fair use of
> > copyrighted material. A use permitted under the fair use
> > provisions of the copyright law may continue to be fair use,
> > regardless of how many times or for how long it is used.
> > Furthermore, the purpose of fair use is to permit
> > socially-beneficial use of copyrighted material without the
> > copyright owner's permission.
> >
> > 5. Copyright owners, and not users, have the responsibility
> > to enforce copyright.
> >
> > While all users should be respectful of copyright, it is
> > primarily the responsibility of the copyright owner to
> > investigate and prosecute violation of copyright. The use
> > of network technology should make this search and discovery
> > process easier, not harder. Nevertheless, the draft
> > guidelines put the onus of protecting the rights of
> > copyright owners on the repository that wishes to distribute
> > material via networks. It would have been much more useful
> > if the guidelines had offered guidance on when it is
> > appropriate to seek permission from the copyright owner,
> > rather than insisting that educational institutions must
> > always do so.
> >
> > 6. Guidelines should not be limited to secure campus
> > networks.
> >
> > The draft guidelines discuss the use of images on the
> > institution's secure local network, including the delivery
> > of thumbnail images. However since, as the guidelines note,
> > thumbnails have "no intrinsic commercial or reproductive
> > value," it should be possible to distribute these freely
> > over an open network for educational or non-commercial
> > purposes under existing fair use provisions of the copyright
> > law. Furthermore, many governmental and private archives
> > wish to make material available for research and scholarly
> > use, and yet their user community may not be confined to an
> > institutional local network, but may be found anywhere in
> > the world. Provisions limiting display to a secure local
> > network for these institutions are meaningless.
> >
> > More fundamentally, the explicit prohibitions against
> > distributing digital images beyond an institution's secure
> > local network found in the guidelines will work to stifle
> > both the commercial and non-commercial development of
> > digital images. If unable to share digital images,
> > institutions will be forced to spend limited funds to
> > digitize material that may have been digitized by a
> > comparable institution, leaving less money for the purchase
> > of digital collections from the vendors.
> >
> > For archival holdings, the amount of use that could be
> > generated within one institution would seldom warrant any
> > digitization. Alternatively, unworkably-small portions of
> > historical collections might be made available digitally,
> > leading to those portions being delivered or received
> > out-of-context. It would also increase the risk of
> > subjectivity in the selection for digitization process.
> >
> > Even if substantial portions of an institution's archives
> > were digitized, under the guidelines usersto an institution
> > to use the digitized materials on the institution's secure
> > local network, defeating in a large part the rationale for
> > digitizing. Moreover, certain potential users of
> > unpublished archival and museum materials, such as
> > schoolchildren, may not for security reasons be permitted
> > access to the physical materials and hence need in-classroom
> > digital access. Limiting access to institutional local
> > networks would impede the development of collaborative
> > (multi-institutional) digital information, research, and
> > educational environments where materials might be collated
> > in new ways, leading to the furtherance of knowledge
> > development.
> >
> > Statement adopted by SAA Council November 12, 1996.
> >
> > 1. Society of American Archivists, "Critical Archival
> > Concerns and Interests in the Development and Implementation
> > of the National Information Infrastructure," June 4, 1995
> > (published in Archival Outlook, July, 1995).
> >
>
>
> --
> Maryly Snow
> Architecture Slide Library
> UC Berkeley
> [log in to unmask]
> 510-642-3439
>