Copyright and the Web (Unit 7)

I have taken other classes where copyright law was discussed, and I have found that copyright law, for the most part, is not as straightforward as patent or trademark law. I was surprised to find how convoluted the copyright laws are especially when it comes to non-print (digital) materials. From the intentions of the writers of the Constitution to the present time, copyright has evolved from something simpler to now, more complicated.

Copyright as far as the web goes still has to abide by the law, but it as I read Rosenzweig and Cohen's Digital History, copyright of web materials is sometimes more work than it is worth. To pursue a copyright issue, the materials have to be registered, and it is more complicated than just putting the "c" along with the year and a name. I can understand why digital historians take the chance of their materials being stolen.

However, the further I read, the more it appears that licensing is one way to "protect" the information on a website beyond copyright, but is it the way to go? In light of the work by Reclaimtherecords.org, perhaps the group may start a trend for public domain data to remain in the public domain. The group is a not-for-profit group of genealogists, historians, researchers, and open government advocates. They are filing Freedom of Information requests to get public data released back into the public domain, and their efforts appear to be working.

As far as musical recordings are concerned, I found this quote interesting,"Music poses significant difficulties both because the rights are more complicated and because the rights holders are often the most vigilant about enforcing copyrights and the greediest in seeking payments" (Rosenzweig and Cohen). It is further complicated by changes occurring on February 15, 1972 where federal copyright laws began protecting sound recordings and the various state laws already in place. Essentially, creating a historical web database of music is out of the question in terms of the laws and monetary requirements. Film appears to follow the same fate. Fair use? So complicated by the law. Then add into the mix the active policing by corporations and their minions.

I think one of the more interesting features and the other side of the spectrum comes from something I noticed when I ran a bookstore, some people were surprised to find books with the same title, and this was easy to explain because book titles cannot be copyrighted; however, the content is copyrightable. Strange, but understandable. Book titles are not considered intellectual property because titles do not possess enough imaginative expression. When things become complicated is when the title is trademarked with the intention of branding, and then this may be where a book title may be singular.

To say the least, copyright and rights to intellectual property seem to be a puzzle the more I delved into them.

Local Museums:
George Washington's Mount Vernon is a phenomenal website that contains volumes of information about George Washington and Mount Vernon. The various web pages do have ©2017 Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association attached. However, the photos page states the photos are available for your editorial, educational, and personal use. Additional statements indicate images are available for download for non-commercial use only, and the images may not be used for any other purpose without the express written permission. I would expect any materials, primary, teacher, student, encyclopedia, and etc. have the same restraints.

George Washington Masonic National Memorial is another terrific website that is orientated towards George Washington's masonic life and Masonry. The pages do have copyright indications on each page, © 2017 GWMNMA. I was not able to find any information as far as images or materials usage. GWMNMA is working on upgrading the server that holds the proceedings of Masonic grand lodges and affiliated bodies and organizations available in a searchable database in the form of the Masonic Digital Archives Project.