Re: third party reproduction of copies

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Burt Altman <baltman[_at_]mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
> I would appreciate hearing from anyone who may have a good take on
> the following issue:
>
> Should an institution (library or archives) refuse to reproduce
> copies for third parties of archival items which it owns but for
> which it clearly does not hold the copyright? Or can it make a
> fair use copy and tell the third party that they must obtain
> permission before using it in any publication or other work?
>
> I would be happy to summarize responses for the list.

A few years ago, I found that the policy of different archives differed markedly. The Humanities Research Center at the U of Texas, Austin; New York Public Library; and the U of Buffalo archive would not provide a photocopy of a letter without the written permission of the copyright owner. The Houghton (Harvard), Beinecke (Yale), and Firestone (Princeton) archives did so immediately, without anyone's permission but with a statement stamped on each copy to the effect that it was solely for research purposes and permission of the copyright owner was required for any publication.

I have been greatly puzzled by this policy divergence. Is it merely a coincidence that the restrictive policy is adopted by public institutions whereas private ones are more helpful to researchers? Are the former more eager to boost visits (when anyone is free to copy material by hand), as this may boost their budget? Their copyright lawyers are unlikely to be more expert than those of Harvard, Yale, & Princeton, but plainly they, or their librarians, are more conservative and more ready to hamper research.

A broad study of archive policy, and the reasons for it, would be most interesting. The U of Virginia, I have learned, follows the Ivies' policy: Virginia has the reputation of being Ivy-like.

Harold Orlans
<horlans[_at_]erols.com>

The U of Virginia archive follows the policy of the three Ivies. Received on Wed Aug 25 1999 - 12:32:15 GMT