JTR Exhibition in Docklands

[Dan Norder]

So, I can give someone a video camera have them go to the conference, which I am not paying to attend, and then post that video on the web for free?

Depends what they video tape. The presentations at the conference are under copyright by the speakers. Martin Fido's speech, for example, was not created back in 1888.

On the other hand, people do go to the conference and take photos of people hanging out, or video tapes of the attendees. That's perfectly fine and happens all the time, because those or not the text of presentations and so forth.

The items in the Jack the Ripper exhibit are old and in the public domain. Museums like to try to pretend that they own the copyright on them just because they own the items themselves, but that's not how the law works. Someone else can take a photo of an item that's in the public domain and do with it what they want. The only exception there would be for things like the newly filmed videos being displayed at the exhibition.

It's all pretty simple and basic, Ally, and most people already know this and act that way at conferences and museums without it needing to be explained to them. Don, however, seems to want to try to change copyright laws so they protect anything he has any association with but that they don't protect anything he wants to take from others. I'm not surprised you show up to defend him again, but of course I am surprised that, as a former conference organizer yourself, you wouldn't understand the differences between reproducing copyright materials and just taking photos.

[Dan Norder]

Or, to be absolutely clear for those people who need it:

Can you go to a conference and take photos of things there: speakers, displays, attendees, etc. and then keep them for personal use or post them online? Yes, of course. That's essentially what Adam did, and it's all lots of people who go to conferences do.

Can you go to a conference with a tape recorder or video camera and record snippits of events, or the people in the audience, or displays, and keep them for non-commercial use? Of course. Adam could have gone that far and been fine, but he didn't even do that much.

Can you go to a conference and record a whole (or substantial) part of an event or events and then either sell it or give it a way for free? No, of course not... at least not without permission from the speakers and/or organizers (depending upon what we're talking about). Did Adam do that? No, not even close.

I don't know why people who went around taking photos at conferences and use them without asking permission from the people in the photos (not that they need to) think that other people shouldn't be allowed to post photos of other events... or this particular one, anyway, as there's been no shortage of photos of other events posted here that nobody complained about. Use some common sense.

[Ally]

That's fine Dan. I'll plan to use the videotape for my own personal use on my own personal website. And since we have no proof that any of the speeches are actually copyrighted...Maybe you should ask all the lecturerers to submit proof that the speeches are in fact copyrighted and not just off the cuff.

But a minor quibble: Don said nothing about copyright. That's your interpretation. He said the moral aspect REGARDLESS of the legal aspect was what was wrong. That people put time and effort into an exhibit and that having photos of it splashed on the internet for free was not fair to the people who took the time and effort into organizing it.

So, who plans to go and videotape the conference? If you plan to videotape it for your own personal use, ahem, PM me. I wouldn't have asked, but since it's not really a moral issue from the conference standpoint...

[AdamWalsh]

Crikey, I will attempt to post less controversially in the future

[Monty]

Adam,

You are legend.

Monty

[AdamWalsh]

I try.

[truebluedub]

Hi Dan and Ally,
I'm not sure what the current copyright law in the U.S. is with regards to conferences etc. but in Ireland and Britain the norm is that in terms of an exhibition new text such as a caption describing an exhibit would be copyrighted but the exhibit wouldn't be. Also we generally ask permission to take photographs if used for anything other than private consumption - not due to the law but to avoid potential reactionary clampdowns. In the main museums tend to tolerate picture taking.
With conferences, lectures are a slightly greyer area and speakers are starting to write copyright at the end of the slides in order to protect their material (it actually tends to be the younger academics who do this). Otherwise I think Dan is pretty much on the ball in his analysis of the situation with Adam's pictures (and legally these are Adam's and not the exhibition organisers).

regards
Chris Lowe

[Ally]

There are lots of things that are "legal" that are not "right". The exhibit asked that no photos be taken. It may not have been illegal to take them, but was it right for them to be placed in the public domain? It's not illegal to leave your cel phone on and receive a call in the middle of a movie, and then proceed to talk loudly ruining the experience for others, but does that make it right? It's not illegal to cheat on your spouse, contract a venereal disease and pass it on, but does that make it right?

The argument was this: was it RIGHT to take the pictures and post them. Dan's the one who brought in copyright law, which is his overriding passion but entirely irrelevant to the question that was posed.

[Dan Norder]

Chris,

Thanks for the common sense that is badly needed whenever Ally gets all riled up.

Ally,

Actually, first off it was Don who was discussing copyright when he talked about museum displays being just as much creative art as other things which are protected. That is incorrect, as putting things under glass and so forth do not rise to that level, as established by plenty of case law. New videos produced exclusively for the exhibition and so forth are a different matter.

Second off, yes, there is sometimes a difference between what is legal and what is right, but if a museum tries to restrict access to public domain materials through trying to prevent photos, then they are the ones in the wrong. Sharing those photos here advances the community in general, which certainly overrules some greedy museum bureaucrats pretending that they own historical heritage and that people need their permission to do anything with it. They own the physical objects and that's it... and, in fact, with many of the items there they don't even have that much of a claim, as they are on loan from other places.

As far as these comments you made:

I'll plan to use the videotape for my own personal use on my own personal website.

That's not "personal use," and you know it.

And since we have no proof that any of the speeches are actually copyrighted...Maybe you should ask all the lecturerers to submit proof that the speeches are in fact copyrighted and not just off the cuff.

Before you try to argue about copyrights you should at least brush up on the basics first. Speeches (and writing and so forth) by modern laws in pretty much all developed countries are automatically covered by copyrights, no filing or paperwork needed. An off the cuff speech would be copyrighted just as much as one that was written out word for word beforehand.

So, who plans to go and videotape the conference? If you plan to videotape it for your own personal use, ahem, PM me.

Everyone who has been to previous conferences have shown themselves to understand those pretty common sense limitations without it having to be spelled out to them. Personal use is just that: personal, no "ahem" involved.

We all know you like to argue for the sake of arguing, especially when you get to jump in to defend Don anytime he gets called on a mistake, but, come on, get a grip. Being ornery on your own time is one thing, but dragging the conference into it is another thing entirely.

[Ally]

Dan,

You need to brush up also. Speeches are only protected if they exist in a tangible form first, i.e written down. Off the cuff speeches are not protected, nor are speeches which use notes only and are "freestyle". Otherwise anyone can say anything and claim copyright. It has to exist in a set pattern first.

Copyright is automatic. Registered copyright has more legal protection and status than non-registered.

You have no problem with someone else's work being put up for all to see and no fee attached. You are currently involved in creating a similar venue. I found it interesting, and am glad to hear your view.

And as for me jumping in to "defend" Don, pot kettle much? You say when I get "riled up" What was your response if not the typical shrill RN vs. Rip crap than NONE of you editors can grow up enough to get over. And to address the facts: First he said nothing about copyright, he said the exhibit as a whole was a creative EFFORT...discussing the work that goes in, and then he said REGARDLESS of the legal situation. And if not for your overriding need to jump in and attack him at every corner, I wouldn't have gotten a glimpse into your view on other people's organizational efforts, which is frankly what I find interesting, not so much the little tiff regarding these photos although as someone who has helped organize a conference, I think it was wrong. I am frankly surprised that you don't.

[anna]

Well said Dan!!!
A quote from Mr Meatloaf:"You took the words right out of my mouth"!!
If I was the organisers,I'd be more concerned if people didn't want to take photo's.
They were put on Casebook not out of malice,but out of kindness to the others who cannot go to the exhibition.
I though they wanted to attract the general pubic,where's the "day out" aspect of the whole thing.
It has been approached in a librarian fashion..and there's nothing wrong in that,if that is what someone appreciates.I prefer the "experience" which could have been provided instead.
Had a little more thought been put into attracting the general public through it's doors,revenue would not be an issue.They would be nursing a very healthy bank balance by now.But,of course,you have to know how to do that.

[caz]

Hi Anna,

Where did you find your information on the health or otherwise of the exhibition's finances?

I'm not sure this is purely a revenue issue. But if you take it to its logical conclusion the first person through the doors could have paid their £7 and filmed all the displays then come back here and let everyone else in the world see them for free, with the result that the exhibition would take £7 and no other bugger would ever organise another one.

It's the 'day out' aspect of the whole thing that makes such an exhibition a viable proposition in the first place. (I think it's the general public they wanted to attract through their doors though, not General 'pubic', watching everything on his computer screen. )

I know very little about these things, and may be horribly wrong here, but one reason why the organisers have stated that no photos should be taken may be out of simple courtesy to the many individuals who supplied items on the basis of how they were going to be displayed to the visiting public and for no other purpose. We may think it doesn't matter if the various owners/caretakers of the items are so stuffy that they would object to other uses being made of them. But it would matter if such stuffiness led to less public access to material in future.

Love,

Caz (not legal, not moral, just practical )
X

[anna]

Hi Caz,
The asumption was made about their finances,due to the fact that the first picture in the series shows the outside of the exhibition.Now,I don't know whether this was taken out of hours,or just before people started to arrive.But if you look at the viewing queue...what viewing queue Anna?Exactly.There is none.
Even when it is open,if Jack has the pull that the first ever exhibition on the subject should have,then you would expect to see a continual snake line going through.Especially as this exhibition is fairly new..and it's tourist season.
I take your point about the person paying their £7 etc..but the fact is that the piccies were not posted with any sort of malice or thought of what effect their action could have,they were posted out of kindness to others on this site, who lived too far away to attend the event.If people on Casebook see the photo's and they live in the UK,they may be encouraged to make the trip,so it will work in the organisers favour.I am shortly to nip over myself to take an upclose peek at that rather fetching mortuary cart!
As I understand from reading I think it was an account of your own trip over?
and Philips also..it seems that maybe they've tried too hard to get it exact,probably trying to please us JTR enthusiasts,who can be a little critical at times!,and left out the atmosphere and the feeling that the Eastend wasn't all doom and gloom,but there was laughter aswell as drama.
By the way,sorry about the blooper!Didn't have me glasses on..you should see some of the cards i've sent whilst entering a card shop on a whim, without me specs,then nippin' in the post office to send a belated card off quick!!!!!!!
Hope alls well in sunny Surry and that lovely garden of yours,
Anna.

[Dan Norder]

But if you take it to its logical conclusion the first person through the doors could have paid their £7 and filmed all the displays then come back here and let everyone else in the world see them for free, with the result that the exhibition would take £7 and no other bugger would ever organise another one.

That's not really a logical conclusion at all. People can already see images of the majority of anything significant at the exhibition by picking up one or more Ripper books or looking through the Casebook. Victim photos, Ripper letters, etc. are already out there. The few things they have that aren't available in Ripper books already are mostly shown online on the museum website picture gallery. The same goes for a good portion of other museum exhibitions. People who go to museums want to see the original objects. That's the whole point behind a museum.

If they want to make restrictions on flash photography to protect the items (usually that's just a rationalization to make sure any photos taken are poor quality), fine. I've also seen some museums additionally prohibit tripods and other bulky photography-related items to try to prevent people getting in the way of other people trying to see the exhibits, which I also understand (and which, probably not coincidentally, also tends to lead to poor quality photos).

Beyond that, though, this is cultural heritage we're talking about, and it belongs to everyone. If corporations and other large entities are allowed to restrict the flow of images and other information (a number of libraries and other institutions pretend to own copyrights on old texts just because they own the physical book or documents) then the whole point behind public domain ends up thwarted.

[Dan Norder]

And just as the final word on this topic to Ally:

If Stephen thought it was wrong to post them (or similar photos from other exhibitions and events in the past that have been put up without any complaints) then they wouldn't be here anymore. They're still up. Considering the relative ease many people have in getting posts removed (with several examples just in the past couple of weeks), that says a lot.