Archiver > SCT-ISLEOFMULL > 2006-07 > 1153566906

From: "Frances Caple" <>
Subject: Re: [Mull] Re: School Records in Tobermory - 1888 copyright Issue
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:15:06 +0100
References: <BAY22-F10E61B5E4D3487BFF1685BB76E0@phx.gbl> <>

Dear Ida, Denise and All Listers,

Denise please do not leave this list, I have heard many wonderful reports
about the Mull Museum and was very much looking forward to visiting it when
I was on Mull 2 years ago, I was very disappointed as I found the person on
duty when I was there cold and dismissive and not at all helpful, there was
a Canadian family there that day and she was falling over herself being
helpful to them, making many predigest remarks about "the English" I was
born in south east england so have a strong english accent, However this
lady is the only person I have encountered on Mull with this attitude,
everyone else I have met has been wonderfully friendly and helpful, likewise
with this list, in every barrel of apples you get the odd sour ones, don't
let them get at you,

now copyright, please understand that what I have written here is not as a
criticism of anyone but merely as an explanation of a few of the rules
pertaining to copyright, for a more detailed explanation each person would
need to find out copyright laws on family history documents in their country
and any country they are obtaining documents from and the copyright laws
between countries, oh and the added information about copyright on the web!
my area of most copyright knowledge is Artistic copyright, but what pertains
though all copyright is that the holder of the copyright is the 'originator'
of the document or property, museums do not hold copyright of their material
unless they created the material, museums are merely holder of the documents
and so caretakers of the copyright for the copyright holder, for example,
many of us on this list during MUGG week gave a copy of our Mull family
history to the Mull museum, the museum does not have the copyright for our
documents we do, if the Mull museum wants to photocopy any of the family
histories that were donated they need written permission from the writer and
if they take a photocopy without that written permission then they are
breaking copyright law, copyright stays with the 'originator' and heirs, it
does not transfer with the document and/or property, for example I have sold
some of my artwork but
I always hold the copyright, the purchaser only owns 'that' piece of Art,
now with Artistic work there is an expiry date a long time after the death
of the Artist but with documents owned by 'bodies' of people the copyright
last as long as the 'body' of people exist, so for instance the 1841 census
of Scotland was taken over 160 years ago but the registrar for Scotland
still holds the copyright, those who use the LDS website may have noticed
that the 1881 census for England and Wales is on the website because the
registrar of England and Wales gave permission but the 1881 census of
Scotland is not on the website because the registrar for Scotland refused
permission, they hold the copyright and yes Ida anyone displaying the census
records should have the permission of the relevant country, copyright is
broken millions of times a day by millions of people, the friend that
photocopies a knitting pattern from a magazine for a friend is breaking the
law but most people turn a 'blind eye' to these small issues it is the big
ones that hit the courts,

going back to the school records it is more likely that the Mull Museum
broke copyright law when it photocopies the record which as a school record
the copyright will be held by the school authority, which could be the local
government, church or independent private,

sorry this is so long but copyright is complicated, many people assume that
if they own something they own the copyright, they don't, the 'originator
and heirs' do, 2 ladies at the MUGG gathering found a letter in the mull
museum from an ancestor of theirs, now the museum may own the letter but
they do not own the copyright, the copyright is owned by the heirs to the
writer of the letters estate, which could be one of the two ladies, as the
writer is deceased then it would need to be known how long the copyright
lasts after death for letters in the relevant countries, when that time
expires there is NO copyright, so the letter becomes public property, anyone
can copy it,

best thoughts

Frances Caple
Isle of Lewis

This thread: