Scanning woodworking catalogs, copyright law?

[Phil Thien]

I tried to check the length of copyright protection. It is kind of confusing.

Background: I fell into a deal on a high-speed duplex color scanner. It runs on a network and quickly scans documents/catalogs/whatever to a PDF file on a server.

I thought it would be neat to accumulate old woodworking catalogs (tools and supplies) and create an archive.

It seems that items distributed before 1978 were only protected until 2006? Can that be right?

Basically, if I found old catalogs from tool manufacturers and mailorder houses, how far back do I need to go before they are no longer covered by copyright protection? Such that I can publicly distribute them.

I suppose I could always contact copyright holders (if they are still around) and ask for permission.

BTW, if you have any old catalogs you'd like scanned (I'm interested in older catalogs from places like The Woodworker's Store, Woodcraft, Garrett Wade, Leichtung, etc.), please E-Mail me (phil at cgallery dot com). Use the words "scanning project" in the subject or body, to bypass the evil spam filter. Let me know what you've got. If what you have "fits," I will scan it to a PDF and send you a download link.

The catch: While there is no charge for this, I will have to cut the binding. And for onsy-twosy items, it may be too much of a pain in the you know what to return the stuff.

But everything is negotiable. Just E-Mail me and let me know what you have, and if you have special concerns about getting it back, etc.

[Dan Bundy]

I think it in part will depend on what you plan to do with the scans. If it's just for your use, there's probably not an issue. If you're distributing them, then it could get sticky. DB

[Ari Friedman]

Anything created after 1964 is almost certainly still copyrighted. Anything created after 1920 something is still copyrighted if the copyright was renewed. Congress in its wisdom *retroactively* extended copyrights on all these works in the late 70's and again in 1998. The dates and scope of both extensions are curiously close to what would be required to keep Steamboat Willie (the precursor to Mickie Mouse) under copyright protection.

Unfortunately, in so doing, they created a vast quantity of "orphan works"--works for whom there is no author to contact and request permission or payment, but which cannot be used for fear of being sued in the remote chance that the content controller still exists.

Practically speaking, you'd probably be fine posting vintage articles as long as you made a good faith effort to contact the authors and had a note up on the page asking authors to tell you if they wanted them taken down. However, I'm most definitely not a lawyer (was very interested in copyright policy at one point, though), and you're definitely not free of risk with this approach.

[Phil Thien]

Anything created after 1964 is almost certainly still copyrighted. Anything created after 1920 something is still copyrighted if the copyright was renewed. Congress in its wisdom *retroactively* extended copyrights on all these works in the late 70's and again in 1998. The dates and scope of both extensions are curiously close to what would be required to keep Steamboat Willie (the precursor to Mickie Mouse) under copyright protection.

Unfortunately, in so doing, they created a vast quantity of "orphan works"--works for whom there is no author to contact and request permission or payment, but which cannot be used for fear of being sued in the remote chance that the content controller still exists.

Practically speaking, you'd probably be fine posting vintage articles as long as you made a good faith effort to contact the authors and had a note up on the page asking authors to tell you if they wanted them taken down. However, I'm most definitely not a lawyer (was very interested in copyright policy at one point, though), and you're definitely not free of risk with this approach.

Thanks for the run-down. Very helpful.

I can see some reasons why companies that are still in business wouldn't want old catalogs floating around: (1) Pricing in old catalog may make pricing in a new catalog seem high (some people just don't understand inflation). (2) They wouldn't want people calling asking if there is a chance there is some discontinued item left in a warehouse. (3) Someone may find an order form and actually send the dumb thing in.

OTOH, old catalogs are a wealth of information, maybe even for the company in question. And it would be good advertising, IMHO. If someone is looking at your old catalogs, there is a good chance they will click-through to a new web site and maybe even order something.

So once I get started on this, I am going to contact the outfits in question and ask their permission. I'll write a simple agreement that gives them the authority to have me remove material if they change their minds.

I'd say I have about a snowball's chance in you know where. But I'll give it a shot.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I would have said that they will probably tell you to go for it. If nothing else, it is free advertising for them if you do post them.

[Charles Wiggins]

Phil,

I have a couple of favorite resources for this sort of thing:

Public Domain Sherpa (http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/index.html) is a great site that explains copyright very succinctly, and she has a Copyright Term Calculator (http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/calculator.html) that can quickly determine if something is in public domain, under copyright, or status unknown.

There is a longer period from 1923 to 1963 where the copyright might have been renewed. If is falls into that category, then I like to check Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database (http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/page?forward=home). I did some quick checking and there are quite a few catalogs that were renewed, including Sears, Roebuck & Co. for several years. BE AWARE that this database is NOT complete! Just because you do not find it listed does not mean it is public domain. You should still try to make an earnest effort to locate the copyright holder.

If you cannot locate the copyright holder to ask permission, the you are dealing with an "orphan work." Legislation on the copyright protection status of orphan works stalled in Congress in 2008, so they are a minefield. If you pursue the copyright holder to ask permission I would document every attempt thoroughly so that if you decide to include that work you can show your due diligence in trying to license the content, in case it ends up in court.

[Brian Elfert]

I'm not sure why the average company would spend the money to take someone to court over scanning in an old catalog. A cease and desist letter I could see, but taking it to a court at a cost of thousands of dollars?

[Phil Thien]

I'm not sure why the average company would spend the money to take someone to court over scanning in an old catalog. A cease and desist letter I could see, but taking it to a court at a cost of thousands of dollars?

I agree, it seems unlikely. But they could do it.

And anyway, it is wrong. If the stuff isn't in the public domain, I shouldn't make it available without the copyright owner's permission.

[Ari Friedman]

If you're lucky, the publication will control the copyrights. If you're not, each article's author will (the publication would just have a license in this case, which may or may not include third parties "reprinting" them).

[Charles Wiggins]

I'm not sure why the average company would spend the money to take someone to court over scanning in an old catalog. A cease and desist letter I could see, but taking it to a court at a cost of thousands of dollars?

I think that in about 99.999% of the cases that is probably what would happen, but do you really want to be in the .001%? Ever heard of Steve Gibson and Righthaven, LLC? They are now defunct and have been stripped of their copyrights, but they bought the copyrights to certain newspaper content and then trolled the Web for anyone who republished any of their content. They jumped straight to lawsuit without any take-down notice, even if the use was clearly allowed under Fair Use precedents. In addition to monetary compensation, they also often sued to take over the poster's domain.

The poor folks being sued had to spend time and money hiring attorneys and going to court even though, in most of the cases, they did nothing wrong. Beside all that though, Phil is right. This really is more of a matter of right and wrong than "will I get sued."

[Charles Wiggins]

Phil,

You probably want to set up a "Copyright" or "DMCA" page (http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy) that explains that to the best of your knowledge all of the works included are in the public domain and information about submitting a take-down notice.

[Orion Henderson]

I don't know about the legal aspect-but I as someone who makes and prints a catalog I'd be delighted to find out that someone was scanning my old catalogs and distributing them on the web. It's free advertising, how could someone complain about that? The catalog is not the content a cataloger is concerned about, the product is our concern. I wouldn't mind at all if someone called asking about an old item, sure it may be a time consuming but its an opportunity too. Pricing, well, so it goes. We get calls all the time from folks with 20-30 year old catalogs. I have most every old catalog we ever made, dating back to the early 1950's and they are a great resource.

Magazines are a different story as they magazine itself was the business. Fine Woodworking would probably feel quite strongly about someone scanning and distributing their content for free.

I believe copyright laws allow you to do as you see fit to any content as long as it is for your own personal use.

[Phil Koundakjian]

Does the catalog indicate it is copyrighted? If not the law does not apply. If the catalogs are sold, i.e you pay for it, the company may object . You can write the companies and tell them what you are whanting to do. I have been turned down once for wanting to copy an article, and guess what, the compnay when out of business.