Hi All, I'm looking for your opinions on a question of copyright. A new Chindit 1 family has recently made contact with me. They made an audio recording of their father's memories from the Burma campaign and presented it to a well known museum in 2005. In order to absorb this audio into their catalogue the museum asked the family to relinquish the copyright to them. Today the family are keen to have his memoir on my website along with all the other stories I have obtained. They have noticed that his audio is not catalogued on the museum's new website platform and are doubly disappointed with this situation. My/their question is: can they hand over a written transcription of the audio to me for use on my site, or does this breach their previous agreement with the museum. Thanks for any views on this predicament.
What did the paperwork stipulate when they relinquished their Copyright?.....even if that is itself possible. I'm assuming that, if this was a mainstream Museum, there would have to have been some paperwork. Wasn't there a recent thread on a similar topic relating to paperwork and codes of practice re disposal of medals where the donor assumed that the items were being given for guardianship in perpetuity but that's not what the paperwork actually said. Would the gentlemans recording not count as an artefact? Just thinking out loud in case it helps!
did they have an agreement that it would be published might be worth them contacting them and finding out what their intentions are I would stick it on there mate
Not a lawyer, but the first question is whether they assigned the copyright to the museum, i.e. it's now the museum's recording, or were the museum granted some sort of licence, short of outright ownership, to use their copy of the recording without having to go back and ask the family's permission every time?
I suspect the latter (effectively a free licence) was the intention but it's what the paperwork says that counts. What did the Museums website originally state about third party use and attribution? That could give clues prior to any contact with the Museum when the 'backside protection' and 'Law of Unintended Consequencies' could kick in ! I'm guessing but are we talking Imperial War Museum. If we are then the paperwork should be pristine.
It shouldn't apply as your website is not for commercial purposes? http://www.iwm.org.uk/corporate/privacy-copyright Kyle
It would be really good if the family knew that the memories were being shared on your site Bamboo...it must be very disappointing to give such a precious thing and for it not to be used. There are lawyers who specialize in this area, a half hours advice might fix it. A transcript isn't a recording, maybe a few small changes could be made ie extracts from etc. but as CL1 says if it's not been published by the museum, maybe the agreement has already been broken...but I'm not a lawyer. Good luck
As someone who lived, expeienced and served in the Forces during the frenetic period of WW2 I have written an awful lot about those times. One of my, I hope, better decisions was to donate my Army Album to the Imperial War Museum in London and details can be found here: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030023786 I have found myself quoted many a time online and have no objection whatsoever providing the original source is quoted in full and is the original text. Ron
Unfortunately Ron when things enter the IWM, the likelihood nowerdays they will be viable for use in publications or cost-effective is rather low. Sadly they have an extremely aggressive policy on monetising acquisitions which is choking a great deal of work out there, especially when they get so much of it for free - from families and veterans who want their words and images to help inform future generations. In some ways its not dissimilar to a giant blackhole, hard to see at times what gems will escape the IWM's grasp.
I deal with IP licenses sometimes and agree with idler/SDP. If it has been licensed to the museum then the owner still has the right to use the IP, except if an exclusive license was granted to the museum (most licenses are non-exclusive). Need to see the paperwork.
Contact the museum concerned. They should be able to clarify the position at least. If they are sensible, they should agree with you that your site is a positive use of the audio, and therefore in their interests. They should be able to produce a statement which says that they collect for the public good with public access (ask for their aims as required on their Museums Accreditation Scheme submission). Argue that you are vehicle for that and free. Their legitimate concern should be that the version you use is of appropriate quality (it reflects on them), is used in context and that they, as the source and copyright holder, are appropriately acknowledged. Usually museums insist copyright gets transferred with items. This is sensible to give them clear title to manage the item. Looking after items in museums costs a lot of money in the long run. To be expected to care for things 'in perpetuity' whilst someone else gets the benefits can be a problem. This is why they no longer take 'permanent loans' and are far more canny about getting exclusive copyright, especially on artworks (there is a very well known artist who took well paid commissions to produce artworks of military actions for regimental museums - his family is now pursuing each for back royalties on use of images of the paintings). Attitudes are changing. Advice to museums now is to encourage use of images and sound online - with appropriate credit. It has been recognised that on-line credit and attention is good marketing. You may have noticed that museums have lapsed strict policies on photography in galleries in recognition that blogs and forum postings have a greater benefit than expecting everyone to pay photography fees or buy a postcard. In the past, as either public or private institutions, museums were told they had a legal duty to protect their financial income by actively seeking income from images and audio and stopping 'misuse'.
Coming late to this and may not be helpful, but the family must have the agreement documentation, so that's what needs to be checked. Like many museums, artefacts get donated which may never see the light of day again, but they are at least preserved and could be traced if needed. Whatever the documentation says should be a guide, but the family need to do the work, not you as a third party, no matter how strong the motivation to help. The family should consider simply writing a formal letter in at least duplicate stating their wish is for your site to have equal access to the recording. If/As your site is not for commercial purposes but to add/enhance/allow the story of the war in the Far East to be available to families and researchers. Even if all rights have been signed away, a transcript "from memory" may be available for you to use instead. Having a slight involvement with a local museum, many items are donated by families who feel it worth keeping but can't do so themselves, when often the donation needs a lot of work or simply isn't that special. If a similar item suddenly appears on the Antiques Road Show, you can guarantee that a donation actually was meant as a long term loan. That's not the case in this example, but it is an area that should be clearly understood by both parties. I'm with you, if it's not being used by them, then it's a bit dog in a manger.
Just a quick and possibly irrelevant thought, but would the fact that the Museum has excluded the item from their current database imply that they themselves have rescinded any copyright rights? It would be a great shame if this situation means that the 'item' has been effectively withdrawn from access by everybody! As I stated earlier, the paperwork should clarify the matter.....and this is clearly the family's responsibility even if only because they are also now unable to 'officially' access the 'item'.
Perhaps there might be something of relevance in the guide “Changes to copyright law. Guidance on the changes to copyright law and how they might have an impact on you” from Intellectual Property Office Last updated: 18 November 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-copyright-law If the family did the transcript, and did not give it to the Museum, I think for copyright purposes the recording and transcript are treated separately. Cheers Maureen
Personally I will use the haterial on my (your web page). It is a none profit page so you are not earning on it. And why should he not be allowed on a memorial beside brothers in arm? You can always put a note on where to find the audio. A few years ago a archive in another country contacted me on the matter. All they asked was that I at least put a link to them on my homepage. Which was done right away of course. So looking forward to see it
To All, Thanks very much for all your helpful replies. I will re-contact the family and have them check their paperwork in regards to the agreement. I am fairly confident that any transcription of the audio by the family concerned would not contravene any copyright issue. I have performed such transcriptions before and used them on my site. The family are just trying to act in a correct manner, which I respect and admire. Seasons Greetings Steve
It may be worthwhile including in any contact with the museum that it is intended to publish on your site unless they object. The next line is of course why have they not published and why are they intent on depriving others of access. May be a slight jolt will get them to act - possibly a compromise if they will publish would be an agreement to a link from your site to theirs. Brian
