British Library Says It's Copyright Infringement To Take Photos Inside The Library; Demands Person Delete Tweet

from the you-have-to-be-kidding-me dept

Update: The British Library has now apologized, noting that a staff member presented inaccurate info. The no camera rule is still there, but they admit it has nothing to do with copyright.

On the whole, librarians tend to be really good on copyright issues, understanding the deeper nuances better than most. Apparently, however, the British Library -- or whoever runs their Twitter feed -- leans in the other direction. There was a bizarre exchange on Twitter today, kicking off with reporter Mathew Ingram, who is in NYC for a conference, tweeting a photo of the Periodicals Room at the NY Public Library, and noting that it was his "office this morning." Another reporter, John Gapper, amusingly tweeted back a photo of his own "office" for the day, which happened to be the Humanities Reading Room at the British Library. All in all, a little slice of life moment that's often kind of fun to see on Twitter -- two reporters noting how they're working from public libraries, separated by an ocean, at the same time. Cool. Except... along comes the British Library with a ridiculous freakout. Its Twitter feed jumped into the conversation to demand that Gapper delete the photo as being against the conditions of use. As a bunch of others started asking why, whoever handles the Twitter account for the British Library Reference Service started tweeting out a bunch of nonsensical claims about copyright and other random arguments that make no sense.

Mathew first asked if the library was serious, and was told yes, and then when Jeff Jarvis asked why, the Library first said "all the more reason for not taking photos then!" which makes no sense at all, and then followed up with two ridiculous claims:

For collection items: copyright issues; for readers: they haven't given their permission to be photographed.

Mathew pointed out that the copyright claim was absurd and that the people were in a public place. The UK isn't Hungary after all. The British Library then tried to defend the copyright statement with a series of tweets:

@mathewi @jeffjarvis @johngapper Why is it absurd? Copying all of a book in copyright is against the law

— BL Reference Service (@BL_Ref_Services) March 21, 2014

@mathewi @jeffjarvis @johngapper Regs permit 5% or 1 chapter or 1 article only to be copied. So photographing more than this is a real issue

— BL Reference Service (@BL_Ref_Services) March 21, 2014

@mathewi @johngapper @jeffjarvis Theoretically possible. But a twitter account was recently closed down for tweeting Top Gun frame by frame

— BL Reference Service (@BL_Ref_Services) March 21, 2014

The argument is ridiculous. Gapper wasn't taking photos of books. It's likely that the Library was explaining why it had the rules in the first place, but even that doesn't make sense. If someone is violating the copyright, then you have copyright laws to go after them and you don't need separate terms of use that block the use of photos -- because, such rules would clearly (as here) also serve to ban photography that doesn't violate copyright law. Similarly, the Library points to the "regulations" for researchers making copies of books, though fails to note that those are what the library advises people stay within to avoid copyright issues. And, once again, none of that has anything to do with the question of whether or not photography itself should be allowed at all, especially to just take a photo of the room, in which no actual books are seen.

All too often in debates about copyright issues, people get high and mighty about something they naturally assume to be true, using a sort of "because... copyright" argument. You'd hope that libraries and the people who work there would be more careful and knowledgeable, but apparently that doesn't apply to the British Library. Either way, point taken. Next time I'm in the UK, I'll find a friendlier "office for the day" than the confused British Library.

Filed Under: copyright, john gapper, libraries, library, mathew ingram, photos, public
Companies: british library

Why Do We Celebrate The 'Solitary' Experience Of Books But Decry The Social Experience Of Online Social Media?

from the newness-vs.-oldness dept

We already wrote making people more lonely, but that same piece made Mathew Ingram go on a bit of rant on Twitter raising a good point. He noted that the same folks who decry social media for making people lonely often celebrate the importance of the solitary experience of reading books. He finds it odd that the solitary experience of reading books is seen as sacrosanct and notes that both experiences can be used to "escape from the real world." So why is one considered bad and one considered an important cultural point?

I'd guess part of it is simply generational. As Douglas Adams has stated (I'm paraphrasing slightly), every tech around by the time you're born is "normal," new technology that is invented before you're thirty is cool and new and anything that gets invented after you're thirty is "against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it." It seems there's definitely an element of that happening here. Also, there's some view that talking to friends is just idle chatter... whereas reading a book is a "serious" thing from which you might learn. Of course, the fact that the most popular books are probably just as insight free as many online conversations is ignored. It's not like everyone reading books is digging into a meaty exploration of ways to solve all the world's problems. Either way, Mathew raises a good point. I'd be curious if someone can defend the importance of books while also defending the claim that social networking is useless without being self-contradictory.

Filed Under: books, douglas adams, mathew ingram, sherry turkle, social media, solitude

Dropbox Adds Key Feature That Supposedly Made Megaupload Illegal: Link To Download

from the warning-signs dept

Popular cloud service provider Dropbox has announced the ability to share stuff in your Dropbox with a link. This is not a revolutionary offering. It's actually pretty common and can be quite useful for simple sharing of files. But, as Mathew Ingram noted, this is exactly part of the reason that Megaupload was accused of criminal conspiracy. For example, the fact that Megaupload did not provide a "search" feature to find all the content in its cloud, but merely let people link in, was seen as a way to "hide" the fact that infringing material was available. I am assuming -- given the way Dropbox operates -- that it, too, is not intending to provide a search engine. It's good to see Dropbox confident enough that it won't be shut down on questionable criminal charges -- but it certainly continues to raise questions about what the government considers evidence of criminal conspiracy... and how that could create a chill on companies who are, perhaps, less well established than Dropbox. Update: As some have pointed out in the comments, the specific feature is more about viewing content via the link, not downloading. Sorry, we should have been clearer. However, again, this fits with the Megavideo style offering of providing access to content without necessarily downloading it. Still appears to be exactly the part that so concerned the Justice Dept...

Filed Under: conspiracy, linking, mathew ingram, search
Companies: dropbox, megaupload