and now a rant on copyright, technology and fair use

I was at the local regional history library yesterday, which is part of the public library system that I am employed, and was shocked to learn that they no longer allow the use of digital cameras in any capacity to copy information stored within their walls. I was in the midst of photographing a few pages of a book with a big sticker on the front that tells me that the item cannot be photocopied (makes sense cause it was old and looked the part) when I was told (very politely and apologetically) that photography was no longer allowed (unless I get permission from the library manager). Which was shocking simply because I had been told previously by staff that I could use my camera to photograph city directory pages and maps that could not be copied due to fragility or size.

The reasons for this decision are familiar to me as a library staff member, I just don’t agree with any of them. They fall under the same “reasoning” that prevents the public from scanning microfilm to an image or .pdf file. The fear that someone could bypass the arbitrary number of pages of a work that can be copied under fair use via the also arbitrary and corporate minded copyright law of the United States. Which I am sure as library staff I should be championing cause it really would be the worst of the worst if someone were to scan the latest Janet Evanovich and put it online for the masses to read cause that hurts the publishing industry who are so kind to let us purchase large quantities of their product and in turn let people have access to it for free. Yeah, I know writers have to make a paycheck too cause they have glamour shot sessions to schedule and ghostwriters to support but thats neither here nor there when it comes down to the fact that a large segment of their audience will not buy their book.. they will get it from the library, read it in the bookstore or download it online. And surprise, they still sell enough to make profits year after year. How does this connect to genealogy? How does it not! An author’s right to ownership to their work is fine, but it was never intended to be protected by copyright law until the end times; such notions are a modern invention. I remember being told that we are not allowed to use the library’s microfilm scanner to scan to digital files as it would violate the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) as scanning a document and transposing it to an electronic platform without asking the copyright holders permission could make us liable. Of course it’s all okay if you’re just scanning to paper? I don’t even want to think about how (those that should read up on fair use) would feel about me scanning a paper copy taken from the microfilm in the comfort of my home.

The other argument I’ve been given other places is that “Flashes on cameras are damaging to paper” and when countered with “I’m not going to use a flash” I would get “Well, maybe you wouldn’t but the next person would” and so on. To this I can’t possible see how using a camera, especially without a flash, could do any more harm to a book than if I were to sit and transcribe the same book (nevermind that transcribing should be viewed as heinous as if I were taking a photo) with each page exposed to lamp light on the table for several more minutes that it would have been exposed while I snapped a few shots with my iphone.

I know I’m ranting, but family historians should be aware of copyright law and how it can hinder what we do. Especially when the law is being used without much insight into the particulars of what it actually allows and forbids.