I never knew that copyright laws were created to stimulate the public’s interest in art, literature, science, and other intellectual inventions. These laws were not initially designed to protect authored works. The purpose was to give copying rights to the public so they could borrow, use, and build upon ideas. The hope was that these works would inspire more innovation and creativity within the society.  Digitization and technology have changed traditional boundaries between authored works and the public domain.  Before electronic publications, the first-sale rule controlled how printed material was sold by booksellers. It allowed new owners to resell or destroy the printed material which they purchased.  This rule does not work for the selling rights of electronic documents because they are so easily reproduced and distributed.  Electronic publications require an ongoing agreement between publisher, seller, and owner.  This usually results in a license or contract that safeguards copyright laws.

Works that are not privately owned typically belong to the public domain. Most Western countries allow works to enter the public domain around 70 years after the author’s death. Copyright laws were established not to protect the author or creator of a work, but to allow the general population access to creative material so that creators can build upon other’s creations.

In T.A. Cooper’s article titled, “CORBIS & COPYRIGHT?: IS BILL GATES TRYING TO CORNER THE MARKET ON PUBLIC DOMAIN ART?,” the author attacks the Corbis Corporation for digitizing public domain artwork and then selling the use of the digital reproductions they create.  The Corbis Corporation is owned by Bill Gates and the collection contains millions of digitized images and illustrations. Cooper believes that Corbis is suspect to violating not only copyright laws, but essentially our constitutional rights. She believes that art in the public domain is protected for the specific purpose of keeping our society creative and vibrant.  She writes, “Spurring creativity is one of the basic purposes of copyright law, with its roots in the United States Constitution: to promote the creation of art by balancing the rights of both the author and the public. This aim is rooted in Article I’s Progress Clause, which “secur[es] for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right” to their work, and subsequently releasing this right to the public “to promote . . . Progress.”

The altering of copyright terms and imposing licenses on digital artwork (in the public domain) has a negative impact on libraries and on the public.  It prevents free or affordable access to digitized, classic  works of art on the internet and it disrupts a vibrant public domain which would allow for more affordable resources through digitization. (Guindon, p163) Technology and the internet have made defining the public domain more challenging.  Some believe the internet will provide the world with access to knowledge and information that is unprecedented and could produce results that will change and empower our lives. Others believe that a small group of corporations will control and own all the information available on the internet.

The American Research Libraries’ (ARL )Principle 9 states that “Libraries are encouraged to refrain from charging fees or royalties for access to or non-commercial use of public domain materials held in their collections.”
Digitization allows open access to collections that were once very difficult to see in one’s lifetime.  Removing the digital gates from these collections and making them available online gives society an opportunity to rapidly advance in the search for knowledge, engage in more intellectual discourse, and enrich education.  Quoting from ARL’s principle number 9, “…libraries are encouraged to grant all non-commercial users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship.” (ARL 2010).  Librarians often engage with rigid publishers and technological gatekeepers who limit access to information.  They deal with complicated licenses and contracts that severely restrict freedom to borrow, copy, or use in other works.  There is also the debate over whether digitization causes severe financial difficulties for artists and other creators of intellectual property.

Artwork that is posted on the internet is publicly available, but is not necessarily in the public domain. Copying such works may therefore violate the author’s copyright.  Images in a collection that end up on public hosting site will have to have no known copyright restrictions.  Copyright restrictions must be expired or the library which owns the collections must have copyright restrictions removed.  Many project planners must be prepared for uploading collections to commercial sites.  In these cases, the managers must remove personal or sensitive material and consider any limitations set in the donor agreement.

In the internet age, traditional copyright laws may need to be reexamined for digitized material.  Digitization allows an enormous amount of users to access material at the same time.  The custodianship and control that libraries once had over image collections may be moving into the hands of commercial vendors.  Project planning for a digital collection involves dealing with different agendas on how we should access information. These issues include copyright laws, fair use laws, and what material should be freely accessible in the public domain.