Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T12:02:37.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Navigating intellectual property in the landscape of digital cultural heritage sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2022

Hannah M. Marek Open the ORCID record for Hannah M. Marek [Opens in a new window]
Hannah M. Marek*
Affiliation:
Independent scholar
*
Email: hmurraymarek@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While three-dimensional digital renderings of cultural heritage sites have been developed over the past decades for informational and preservation purposes, the COVID 19 pandemic has demonstrated that the audience for virtual cultural heritage – so-called “technoheritage” – is likely to grow, engaging lay persons and specialist scholars alike through creative renditions and experiences of digital sites. Virtual availability affords democratized access to cultural heritage sites in theory, yet the process of digitizing heritage raises questions of intellectual property rights and how they should be allocated among the various stakeholders, including site stewards and heritage recording organizations. This article untangles these knotty intellectual property issues and posits that the current trend to treat all technoheritage and related data as copyrightable intellectual property is a clunky approach and not legally sound. Understanding the intellectual property in and to technoheritage and addressing intellectual property allocation in the complex manner the law requires are crucial to finding workable solutions that can balance concerns regarding appropriation of cultural heritage with open access to information.

Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 1 - 21
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Cultural Property Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguerre, Anaïs. 2017. “Cultural Heritage beyond Google Search: An Interview with Chance Coughenour.” In Copy Culture: Sharing in the Age of Digital Reproduction, edited by Brendan Cormier, 215–22. London: V&A Publishing. https://vanda-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/2018/06/15/11/42/57/e8582248-8878-486e-8a28-ebb8bf74ace8/Copy%20Culture.pdf (accessed 7 April 2021).Google Scholar
Bekele, Mafkereseb Kassahun, and Champion, Erik. 2019. “A Comparison of Immersive Realities and Interaction Methods: Cultural Learning in Virtual Heritage.” Frontiers in Robotics & Artificial Intelligence, 24 September. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00091.Google Scholar
Carleton University. 2020. “Ethics of Heritage Recording, Part 4 of Accessing Heritage from Home Webinar Series.” National Sciences and Engineering Research Council CREATE Heritage Engineering Program, 15 July. https://carleton.ca/heritageengineering/2020/ethics-of-heritage-recording-webinar/ (accessed 7 April 2021).Google Scholar
Christen, Kimberly. 2009. “Access and Accountability: The Ecology of Information Sharing in the Digital Age.” Anthropology News 50, no. 4: 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, Kenneth D. 2012. “Museum Policies and Art Images: Conflicting Objectives and Copyright Overreaching.” Fordham Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Law Journal 22, no. 4: 795–834.Google Scholar
Crews, Kenneth D., and Brown, Melissa A.. 2010. “Control of Museum Art Images: The Reach and Limits of Copyright and Licensing.” In The Structure of Intellectual Property Law: Can One Size Fit All?, edited by Annette Kur and Vyautas Mizaras, 269–84. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2026476 (accessed 7 April 2021).Google Scholar
Cronin, Charles. 2015. “3D Printing: Cultural Property as Intellectual Property.” Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 39, no. 1: 1–40.Google Scholar
D’Amore, Elisabetta. 2019. “Trends in Commercial Use of Images of Italian Historic Monuments or Works of Art.” Società Italiana Brevetti, 1 April. https://www.sib.it/en/articles/trends-in-commercial-use-of-images-of-italian-historic-monuments-or-works-of-art-by-elisabetta-damore/(accessed 7 April 2021).Google Scholar
Dickson, Laura. 2019. “Digitizing Cultural Heritage Studies: Historical Context, Current Realities and Future Possibilities.” In The State of Museum Digital Practice in 2019: A Collection of Graduate Essays and Responses, edited by Anderson, Suse et al., 126–42. Washington, DC: Ad Hoc Museum Collective. https://ad-hoc-museum-collective.github.io/GWU-museum-digital-practice-2019/downloads/output.pdf (accessed 7 April 2021).Google Scholar
Garvin, Kaitlyn M. 2019. “Reclaiming Our Domain: Digitization of Museum Collections and Copyright Overreach.” IDEA: The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property 59, no. 2: 455–81.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Jane C. 1992. “No ‘Sweat’? Copyright and Other Protection of Works of Information after Feist v. Rural Telephone.” Columbia Law Review 92, no. 2: 338–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Historic England. 2018. 3D Laser Scanning for Heritage: Advice and Guidance on the Use of Laser Scanning in Archaeology and Architecture . 3rd ed. Swindon, UK: Historic England. https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/3d-laser-scanning-heritage/heag155-3d-laser-scanning/ (accessed 7 April 2021).Google Scholar
Hollinger, R. Eric et al. 2013. “Tlingit-Smithsonian Collaborations with 3D Digitization of Cultural Objects.” Museum Anthropology Review 7, no. 1–2: 201–53.Google Scholar
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). 1996. Principles for the Recording of Monuments, Groups of Buildings and Sites (1996). 11 October. https://www.icomos.org/charters/archives-e.pdf (accessed 7 April 2021).Google Scholar
Katyal, Sonia K. 2017. “Technoheritage.” California Law Review 105, no. 4: 1111–72.Google Scholar
Margoni, Thomas. 2015. “The Digitisation of Cultural Heritage: Originality, Derivative Works, and (Non) Original Photographs.” University of Amsterdam Institute for Information Law. 3 March. https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1507.pdf (accessed 7 April 2021).Google Scholar
Nimmer, Mellville B., and Nimmer, David. 2019. Nimmer on Copyright: A Treatise on the Law of Literary, Musical and Artistic Property, and the Protection of Ideas. Rev. ed. New York: Matthew Bender & Company.Google Scholar
Oruc, Pinar. 2020. “3D Digitisation of Cultural Heritage: Copyright Implications of the Methods, Purposes and Collaboration.” Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law 11, no. 2: 149–59.Google Scholar
Pittman, Linnea Dale. 2020. “Combatting Copyright Overreach: Keeping 3D Representations of Cultural Heritage in the Public Domain.” New York University Law Review 95, no. 4: 1192–1228.Google Scholar
Quintero, M. Santana, and Fai, S., Smith, L., Duer, A., and Barazzetti, L.. 2019. “Ethical Framework for Heritage Recording Specialists Applying Workflows for Conservation.” International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLII-2/W15, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W15-1063-2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipley, David E. 2007. “Thin but Not Anorexic: Copyright Protection for Compilations and Other Fact Works.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law 15, no. 1: 91–141.Google Scholar
Silberman, Neil. 2014. “From Cultural Property to Cultural Data: The Multiple Dimensions of ‘Ownership’ in a Global Digital Age.” International Journal of Cultural Property 21: 365–74.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Anne Marie. 2016. “Cultural Heritage and New Media: A Future for the Past.” John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 15, no. 3: 604–46.Google Scholar
Thompson, Erin L. 2017. “Legal and Ethical Considerations for Digital Recreations of Cultural Heritage.” Chapman Law Review 20, no. 1: 153–76.Google Scholar
Victoria and Albert Museum. 2017. “2017 ReACH Declaration.” Reproduction of Art and Cultural Heritage Program, 8 December. London: V&A Publishing. https://vanda-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/2017/12/15/14/49/22/a743acd8-6522-48ce-8700-7b78e59c8bf2/ReACHDeclaration.pdf.Google Scholar