Darwin’s Manuscripts

UPDATE 2014-11-25 6:28AM (ET): Grant Young, Head of Digital Content at Cambridge University Library commented to let us know where the Darwin manuscripts stand legally. The unpublished manuscripts remain under copyright to the Darwin Estate until 2039. As Young notes in his comment below, Cambridge University Library is actively working to reduce the copyright period on unpublished works and prefers to release documents as openly as possible. The original post has been modified with the elements that are no longer applicable having been struck out.

The Cambridge Digital Library has simulataneously done a thing that is very cool thing and thing that is a bit uncool. They have digitized and made available online over 30,000 Charles Darwin manuscripts from 1835-1882. That is a very cool thing to do.

The Charles Darwin Papers in the Manuscripts Department of Cambridge University Library hold nearly the entire extant collection of Darwin’s working scientific papers. Paramount among these documents are Charles Darwin’s Evolution Manuscripts, which are being published online at the Cambridge Digital Library and simultaneously at the Darwin Manuscripts Project in collaboration with the Darwin Correspondence Project. This is a conceptually coherent set of over 30,000 digitised and edited manuscript pages, spanning 1835-1882.
-Cambridge Digital Library

You will notice, however, that I have not posted an image of any of these manuscripts, say a cute sketch of a fir trees that I find wonderfully idiosyncratic (and which does not make me feel bad about my own artistic abilities).

That is because the Cambridge University Library is exerting an “all rights reserved” copyright over the digital images of manuscripts, which are themselves likely* (due to age) to be in the public domain. This is a bit uncool. Though they are within their rights to exert copyright over the images, this potentially creates barriers to using these manuscripts as a resource for science communication and research.

This image may be used in accord with fair use and fair dealing provisions, including teaching and research. If you wish to reproduce it within publications or on the public web, please make a reproduction request.
-Cambridge Digital Library

Although I have no doubt that Cambridge University Library is reasonable in dealing with reproduction requests, the system is not particularly convenient, nor does it appear well suited for handling multiple image requests.

This must have been a very challenging project and the Cambridge Digital Library deserves all the credit they will receive and more; but you can have credit without absolute control.

Cambridge University Library, please share.

*IANAUKIP – I Am Not An United Kingdom Intellectual Property Lawyer


Filed under: Items of Interest Tagged: Cambridge University Library, Charles Darwin, Copyright, creative commons, manuscirpts

Space Updatity

We have a hopeful sounding update on the takedown of astronaut Chris Hadfield’s video cover of David Bowie’s “Space Oddity” from the International Space Station. According to Ars Technica, it was Hadfield himself who took down the video in order to comply with his original agreement with David Bowie. For those paying close attention (eg, not me), Hadfield gave us a little advanced warning that this was going to happen:

Screenshot 2014-05-28 11.23.48

Hadfield and Bowie’s camps are reported to be working on a new licensing deal that should see “Space Oddity” from orbit return to the Web at some unspecified future date. Don’t hold your breath, though. Getting the details of the first, one-year license hammered out apparently took several months – probably due to the variety of individuals and government organizations involved.

If I were David Bowie*, I would be grumpy with my representatives for not getting a new deal done before the old one expired. In the one line of an otherwise very wise discussion of the copyright issues surrounding Hadfield’s “Space Oddity” cover (endorsed by Hadfield) that misses the point, Meera Nair says:

Yet the fact that something that people liked to watch was disappearing from YouTube prompted a bewildering public outcry.

The outcry might have been unreasonable, but there was nothing bewildering about it to regular viewers of the Internet.

The original one-year license made sense at the time. In retrospect, the video seems like the most likely candidate to go viral ever. At the time, who knew it would matter so much when the license expired?

Hadfield’s cover of “Space Oddity” was tremendously good press for Bowie and introduced the song to generations that were not necessarily familiar with his oeuvre. While not necessarily fair, it was obvious that the removal of Hadfield’s cover from the public spaces on YouTube would make Bowie look like a monster. In many ways, this is less a copyright FAIL than a public relations FAIL.

*I suspect that, were I David Bowie, that this issue has not been at the top of my priority list.


Filed under: Song of the Week Tagged: Chris Hadfield, Copyright, David Bowie, International Space Station, Space Oddity

Space Oddity, we hardly knew ye…

UPDATE: The video was taken down voluntarily by Hadfield in keeping with his original agreement with Bowie and without pressure from Bowie. That does not mean this is how things should have happened.

Almost one year ago today, I posted about astronaut Chris Hadfield’s cover of David Bowie’s “Space Oddity” from the International Space Station. I hope you took the time to check it out then, because you can’t anymore.

According to the Ottawa Citizen, David Bowie had given Hadfield a one-year license to cover Space Oddity. Last Wednesday, the license expired and the video was taken down.

While Bowie has the right to license his song as he sees fit under the law, it is difficult to see how this helps anyone, including Bowie, aka The Goblin King. It is very easy to see how this hurts the effort to inspire people with science and art.

At the time, I wrote that Hadfield’s cover represented the “best of humanity”. If that was true then, what does this – the use of copyright pedantry not to prevent theft of ideas, but to squash creativity and inspiration – represent?

But, let us reflect the best of humanity and be charitable. Maybe Bowie just forgot to renew the license. I do that all the time – forget things, not licenses, no one wants to license my crap.

*Hat tip to Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing.

 


Filed under: Song of the Week Tagged: Chris Hadfield, Copyright, David Bowie, International Space Station, Space Oddity

Creative output, social media & the tragedy of the commons

Screenshot 2014-01-24 11.43.27

Ed Yong’s comment on Alexis Madrigal’s article at The Atlantic is spot-on.

Can you spot the fundamental flaw in the logic of self-justifying logic of the owners of @HistoryInPics*?

“Photographers are welcome to file a complaint with Twitter, as long as they provide proof. Twitter contacts me and I’d be happy to remove it,” he [Xavier Di Petta] said. “I’m sure the majority of photographers would be glad to have their work seen by the massives.”
-from “The 2 Teenagers Who Run the Wildly Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics” by Alexis Madrigal

If you don’t tell people who took the pictures, how do the photographers benefit from having their work seen by the “massives”? Sure, having one’s work make an impact is a reward unto itself, but it doesn’t pay the bills.

When our artists can’t pay their bills, we get less art. Or as the internet would say,  ”This is why we can’t have nice things.”

*In general, I avoid linking to folks that are making their bank on the backs of uncredited artists.


Filed under: Follies of the Human Condition, The Art of Science Tagged: @HistoryinPics, Alexis Madrigal, Art, Copyright, Ed Yong, History, Linkonomicon, social media, Twitter

Creative output, social media & the tragedy of the commons

Screenshot 2014-01-24 11.43.27

Ed Yong’s comment on Alexis Madrigal’s article at The Atlantic is spot-on.

Can you spot the fundamental flaw in the logic of self-justifying logic of the owners of @HistoryInPics*?

“Photographers are welcome to file a complaint with Twitter, as long as they provide proof. Twitter contacts me and I’d be happy to remove it,” he [Xavier Di Petta] said. “I’m sure the majority of photographers would be glad to have their work seen by the massives.”
-from “The 2 Teenagers Who Run the Wildly Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics” by Alexis Madrigal

If you don’t tell people who took the pictures, how do the photographers benefit from having their work seen by the “massives”? Sure, having one’s work make an impact is a reward unto itself, but it doesn’t pay the bills.

When our artists can’t pay their bills, we get less art. Or as the internet would say,  ”This is why we can’t have nice things.”

*In general, I avoid linking to folks that are making their bank on the backs of uncredited artists.


Filed under: Follies of the Human Condition, The Art of Science Tagged: @HistoryinPics, Alexis Madrigal, Art, Copyright, Ed Yong, History, Linkonomicon, social media, Twitter

Can academics use the "copyright termination" system to recover academic works?

Heard an interesting story on copyright termination on NPR last night: Taking Back 'Funkytown': Songwriters Prepare For A Custody Battle  By Joel Rose.  This in turn led me to a New York Times article on the same general topic: A Copyright Victory, 35 Years Later - NYTimes.com.

The gist of these stories is that it turns out UC Copyright law has a "termination" provision which allows artists / writers / etc to terminate copyright agreements that they made for work they produced.  This is allowed 35 years after the copyright was assigned.  And many musicians are using this provision of copyright law to reacquire some works they made three and a half decades ago.

So - I am asking the world out there - could this same provision be applied to scientific or academic works?  Would this be a way to move a lot of material that is behind a wall back into the hands of authors and/or into the public domain?  I am looking into doing this with work published by my father as a test case (as part of my long struggle of  Freeing My Father's Publications (since termination rights apparently transfer to family members if the holder passes away as my dad did in 1987).

So - anyone out there know if this termination has been used for scientific or academic works?

UPDATE: Other reading

Trying to explain “Fair Use”

If I have learned one thing from reading Cory Doctorow’s novels, it is that you do not want to be sued by Disney. That means that you probably want to be familiar with the Fair Use concept from Copyright Law. I’m not a copyright lawyer. The odds indicate that you are not a copyright lawyer. This means that neither of us is truly familiar with the Fair Use concept from Copyright Law.

Fortunately, the American University Center for Social Media has published a Set of Principles in Fair Use for Journalism:

This document is a statement of principles to help journalists in the United States interpret the copyright doctrine of fair use. It is intended for anyone who engages in the set of practices that entails creating media of any kind that refers to real-life events of public interest, in service of public knowledge, whether that person is a full-time professional or an individual who takes it upon himself or herself to report about specific issues or events…Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment under some circumstances—especially when the cultural or social benefits of the use are predominant.

It is intended for “journalists”, but I’m not really sure what that means anymore, either. Heck, they happily punt on the definition too. If you ever feel the urge to write things related to copyrighted material, you probably want to review this.

*Hat tip to Ellyn Angelotti at Poynter.