Copyright, Copyright, Copyright

"Copyright Trolls Censor Internet Content with False Claims of Infringement." occupycorporatism.com

I used to worry about copyright all the time. One of my favorite past-times as a kid was to write and draw comic strips - one even got published in my local newspaper. Of course I was only 13 and I didn't understand too much about copyright, but even so I worried about my rights as a creator. I took a lot of pride in what I made and I wanted the credit for it. For a time I even took to carefully writing in the copyright "c" on all of my pictures. As annoying as the LOC's "Taking the Mystery Out of Copyright" may seem today, it would have saved me a lot of unnecessary stress if I had known about those simple facts sooner. It wasn't  until I was much older that I found out through research that I had actually been protected the whole time: as soon as the work was finished, the law recognizes it as copyrighted to the creator of the work.  But what is a copyright, exactly, and how does it work?

Wikipedia (as usual) does a pretty good job of explaining copyrights: "Generally, it is 'the right to copy', but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights." In short, copyright makes sure that the credit goes to the right person. However, historically speaking, the length of time that the creator could expect to have these rights legally recognized has changed significantly, as have the types of documents that can be copyrighted.  Cohen and Rosenzweig remind us that "copyright law is an ever-evolving set of principles, balancing the rights of producers and consumers." For historians this means that we must always be vigilant and respectful of the property of others and be knowledgeable of the ever-changing laws surrounding copyright. Looking back at the U.S. Copyright Act of 1790, copyright owners could only have copyrights for 14 years, and then renew those rights once for another 14 years. Mark Twain then championed the notion that copyrights should last a lifetime, plus 50 years after the creator's death. Though Congress rejected this plan originally, it eventually passed in 1976.

The problem of copyrights for scholars is that it is difficult to access copyrighted materials and also difficult to obtain permission to use or copy copyrighted materials for research purposes. It is tempting as a researcher to have an "us vs. them" concept of copyrights. However, as we publish our own works we are worried that others will misuse or steal our ideas. Peter B. Hirtle's article "Digital Preservation and Copyright" carefully guides historians around copyright issues in digital preservation, while also recognizing that "Our desire to keep digital information around for the future runs smack into the exclusive rights of the copyright owner." Steven Seidenberg's article also relates a specific problems with copyright ambiguities. Seidenberg writes that a man who had recorded and collected numerous works from Jazz era musicians passed away, and his collection was eventually acquired by the National Jazz Museum. However, because there are so many recordings from so many different artists, it is next to impossible to find out who owns the copyrights to the recordings. Because of this technicality it is improbable that the collection will be available for the public to hear in the near future, if ever.On the flip side, Mark Helprin's "A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright?" makes a very good point. Helprin believes that copyrights may very well be too lenient and short-lived. After all, personal property can be passed down through generations indefinitely, why can't the rights to copyrighted materials? Are they not "intellectual" property? He writes that "'Freeing' a literary work into the public domain is less a public benefit than a transfer of wealth from the families of American writers to the executives and stockholders of various businesses who will continue to profit from, for example, 'The Garden Party,' while the descendants of Katherine Mansfield will not." Certainly, copyright law does not seem too fair from this perspective.

To remedy the injustice, Helprin suggests that Congress should lengthen the terms of copyrights as fall as they can. This may solve the problem of credit where it is due, but it does not give the researcher much leeway. Creative Commons attempts to remedy the divide between "public domain" and copyright. The Creative Commons website allows creators to make public how, when, and for what reasons their materials may be reproduced - so that copyright owners can share their materials without releasing them totally to the public domain. Their symbol "cc" (instead of the "big 'C'" copyright) lets people know "some rights reserved" instead of "all rights reserved." Even so, Peter Benjamin Hoth uncovers some gaping holes in Creative Commons' licenses. Hoth sums up the problem, writing that "Creative Commons is a system that alleges that it is more flexible than the classical copyright licensing models. In reality however, where this system is flexible, it creates unenforceable rights. And when it comes to terms of validity or irrevocability of the licence – it turns out to be inflexible."

After coming at copyright law from every angle, it's easy to want to give up on the whole issue. If there is nothing you have taken away from this post but the fact that copyright law is extremely complicated, I can't reasonably blame you. However, as an informed scholar it is your duty to understand (at least at the very basic level) what you stand to gain and lose from copyright laws. Also, keeping abreast of current legislation should help buffer you from any major problems. Just remember that copyright is meant to protect and give credit - a respectful researcher will recognize this and ask for permission when necessary.