Re: Fair Use Question? Hits the nail on the head!

Kevin Comerford disclosed some sound reasoning for collection controls. While I might lessen my characterizations of certain crowds, I agree with the premise of his response. I attended an annual meeting last year where two educators were showing off their multimedia program. As they were transversing the core of their program, I curiously informed them that a majority of the images were from my collection !!! "...only a prototype, and what would the use fees be, by the way???"

Mr. Comerford's point about image quality was also on target, because in the case sighted above, the images were scanned out of books and looked pretty bad because of the resulting moire patterns (printing screen dpi frequency colliding with scanner dpi frequency).

Educational institutions are major bureacratic superstructures that often don't share a real world viewpoint. Paying the electric bill to keep temperature and humidity low enough so that the "actual" material doesn't corrode is a real world problem. Our old (paraphrased) adage, "continued use of the collection depends upon care and preservation of the materials," still is pertinent in my view.

I just wanted to thank Kevin for some very pertinent points.

>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Mar 1994, Maryly Snow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Museums seem to be holding onto "their" copyright because they
>>>>>>make money through their rights and reproductions offices, but
>>>>>>(chomp)
>>
>>This is not an isolated incident, either. I witness a veritable
>>feast of intellectual carnage on any day of the week. After a
>>number of years of rights and reproductions experience, I feel safe
>>in saying that many (not all, certainly) in the scholarly,
>>education, and information professions are simply not attentive
>>enough to the quality and accuracy of the information (visual and
>>textual) they reproduce to be left to their own devices,
>>unsupervised as it were. ... The only way to control
>>irresponsibility and fulfill our mission to the public is to
>>maintain current documentary copyright on our works of art, and
>>restrict photographic access to those works to responsible
>>individuals (and unfortunately, that isn't even enough alot of the
>>time). That is the real purpose of museum Rights and Reproductions
>>services.
>>
>>As for the cost, well it costs money to maintain these controls...
>>It's amazing that we have to regulate access to artworks just to
>>make sure someone will reproduce an image within acceptable limits,
>>and get the identity of the piece correct.
>>
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>Kevin J. Comerford | internet: czbb020[_at_]access.texas.gov
>>Dallas Museum of Art | compuserve: 71233,2412
>
>Kevin, I'm not feeling too flamed...Maybe all museums should learn
>about standards and cataloging systems so they can speak coherenty
>and consistently not only to each other, but also in house...
>
>Maryly Snow
Received on Mon Mar 21 1994 - 23:36:34 GMT