Copyright and Cool Old Stuff

[Tom_Doak]

As I mentioned just now in a routing post:


Somewhere I have a copy of Simpson's consulting report for Muirfield, which Archie Baird gave to me.  It is an absolute classic piece of writing.  But I don't think he re-routed any of the holes, I think his suggestions were just after the 1928 re-routing, which eliminated the opening par-3.



It occurs to me that I have so much stuff like that is a lonely file cabinet in my office:  old articles by Walter Travis, Hugh Alison's evaluation of the Flynn plan for Shinnecock Hills, etc.  I should really enlist someone to scan the coolest stuff and put it up on my web site.  I don't think there are any copyright issues about that, but does anyone know? 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Not an answer to your question but Simpson’s redesign reports on Baltray and Ballybunion are my two favourite pieces in my files.

[Forrest Richardson]

IP Law is a hobby of mine. One of my great friends was a Patent Attorney, and we would regularly have lunch and I would lean words such as "farkle" (look it up.)

If the original writing or piece was widely distributed without any protection notice (e.g., "Copr. 1934 John Doe") then it certainly rises to the status of "public domain", meaning that it probably is free to use and copy.

If the work is pre-1924, then it is almost certain that the work — even if protected originally — is now fully in the public domain.

The issue with old stuff such as this is that publishers will often find something in the public domain, re-publish it and wrongfully claim a new (e.g., "©2005 John Doe") "protection". The proper method is to re-publish and ONLY claim any new aspects of the work, such as the formatting or design. In this case the modern publisher SHOULD disclaim the actual writing, and only maintain "ownership" of anything new or created.

No reasonable Federal Court would find infringement against republishing the words if they had fallen into the public domain at some point in time.

[David_Tepper]

Tom D. -

At the very least you should scan all these documents/reports (and store them in the cloud) so that they they are preserved should  there ever be a fire or flood or other event which damages your office and its contents.

DT

[Niall C]

I've done a fair bit of digging in archives and had to contend with various librarians and archivists and it amazes me how differently some of them interpret the rules. That said, my basic understanding is that if it is a written work and over 70 years old then you can publish it but if it is a photograph then its 70 years after the death of the photographer. That's for the UK, the US might/probably will be different.


I could of course have got all that wrong and hopefully someone like Mark Pearce will chime in and keep me right but the other issue is where you source the material and whatever rules they have. The National Library of Scotland has bound volumes of Golf from 1890 onwards as well as Golf Illustrated from the start. Loads of great material and the facilities to scan it however unless you pay a premium and state how you are going to use the material the scan has a watermark preventing you from publishing. The National Records Scotland also holds some great material and you can get scans of the Old Course maps for example. As long as it's for personal research then it's readily accessible.


Niall 

[V_Halyard]

I can jump in as we have to+ deal with Copyright and IP across all Film, Video, Music, Print and Audio spoken word. Best is to discern the origin of the content as copyright laws and stature of limitations are different based on country of origin.  Then see if it is listed and/or registered with that country's copyright office and last determine the status of expiration.


Note, multiple writers may mean multiple potential claims. Writer does not necessarily mean "owner" or "publisher".
If they are old as dust, copyrights MAY have expired based on the country of origin, likely they are in public domain.
Doubtful that a copyright vulture has scooped them up but best to at least check the origin country Federal equivalent of the US Library of Congress for which may include the referring copyright holder.

[BCrosby]

Copyright law in the age of the internet is a mess. First, UK and US rules differ. Mark Pearce is your guy in the UK. In the US, pretty much anything published pre '24 is now public domain (that date will roll forward one year every year), unless the holder of the copyright has renewed its rights, which can happen with some newspapers or magazines.

A big issue is damages. Even if there are technical violations of c/r in the republication of older materials, damages are often hard to determine. Mark can give a picture of the UK rules. In the US there are statutory damages (even if there are no actual damages), but to be imposed they require a c/r holder willing to incur the expense of filing a claim in federal court or credibly threatening to do so. In short, even if c/r is violated in respect of older, obscure materials we tend to find interesting, they have little, if any, commercial value. Which means that statutory damages are what you worry about. Those can be real but a party willing to assert them strikes me as highly unlikely in most cases.
 
All of the above is complicated by our ability to distribute c/r materials to millions of people with the push of a button on the internet. There is little in US copyright law that reflects that modern reality. So, as noted, c/r is a mess with few good roadmaps. There are a couple of, but not many, reported cases to help sort things out. Remarkably, the last round of material amendments to US copyright law were in the late 1990s to reflect that new technology called the 'fax machine.'
 
Note that I am not a c/r lawyer. The above is what I have picked up on my own. If you have c/r questions, you should consult a specialist. In fact, it would be great if a US specialist chimes in. I would welcome any corrections to the above and get an update on where things stand today.

Bob

[Steve Lang]

    

The United States Copyright Office, a part of the Library of Congress, is the official U.S. government body that maintains records of copyright registration in the United States.

[/size]

[/size]Seems simple enough to check with them for USA claims...

[Mark Pearce]

   
The United States Copyright Office, a part of the Library of Congress, is the official U.S. government body that maintains records of copyright registration in the United States.
Seems simple enough to check with them for USA claims...

Though international conventions mean that non-USA resident copyright owners can rely on copyright in the USA without registration (copyright is not a registered right in most of the world, including the UK and EU).