Ethics in archiving?

Subject: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 01:33 PM

I want to pose a question for open discussion: What are some of the ethical issues involved in archiving?

To explain: I started tape recording folk music sessions when I was teenager, 150 years ago. I recorded hoots, jam session, private one on one song swaps. I used to drag an 80 pound WebCore tape recorder with me all over the map. Now I'm starting a 20 year dream of listening to, editing, identifying, and eventually downloading all this material onto archivel quality CD's. I've got about 300 reel to reel tapes, 400 cassette tapes, and 100 vinyl records.

As I get into the material, I'm realizing several things: most of the people I've recorded have passed on. I'm sitting on treasures, but mainly to a select few, survivng friends. My purpose of this project is to 1. save the material and catalog it 2. make playable CD copies for my personal use 3. make a few playable copies for surviving friends 4. pass on my collection for posterity.

Here's two questions to get the discussion started:

1. What should I do if some surving family members object to my project?

2. What should I do, what's the right thing to do, if say one member of a recorded duo is still alive and objects to my efforts?

I look forward to your thoughtful answers. CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 01:57 PM

Deckman Bob--

Are (were) the people you recorded professional musicians who were paid for their performances, and who would expect royalties? Or are (were) they amateurs performing for fun.

If you plan to give copies away, it would be a courtesy to check with the performers if possible.

I would think that this could be a wonder archive of a period mostly forgotten. Perhaps a University folk music archive would like it.

I say this not as a lawyer--heaven forfend--but as one who would like to be so treated

I, myself, have started recording my LPs to CDs/MP3s for my own use.
I have also plan to prepare CDs based on subject or type of music to listen to in that best of all venues...my car

I had hoped to provide these to a local folk music show, much as an oldies folk show, but alas he has been 86ed by the station and has not found another outlet. As they pay BMI, ASCAP fees, I figured it would be okay to give them to him...not sell.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Little Robyn
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 02:03 PM

Have you actually struck any objections?
I would think if anyone had recordings from way back that included me or my husband or any family member, I'd be tickled pink that they were being revived. As long as you're not aiming to sell them and get rich from it while I'm living in poverty....
We have old tape recordings from the 60s and gradually they're finding their way onto CDs but apart from the nostalgia bit, they're pretty crappy - amateur hour stuff!
Just ask the people involved if you can find them. Most wouldn't object. The Tony Rose project grew out of a request for old recordings and his family really wanted to do it.
Robyn

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 02:08 PM

I'd say that the ethics of this is that the preservation of the recordings is of far far greater importance than any objections.

If you were in the UK I'd suggest EFDSS or similar.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 02:19 PM

Professional vs amateur. Where do you draw the line? We were all "amateurs" when we started, but many of us went on to "professional" status: records, concert tours, films, radio and TV. But these were just the "friends" I grew up up with. Bob

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Artful Codger
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 02:35 PM

Even amateurs (or their estates) are entitled to a cut, if there is any income involved. There is also the copyright issue, for all their arrangements and original works. Real collectors/archivers have performers sign releases detailing how the recordings can be used. Failing this, you're always putting yourself at legal risk trying to make such recordings available, even at no charge and for what you consider "educational" use. You may have to let the recordings languish until all copyrights have expired (long after you have.) Sorry, but the laws were designed for the benefit of media conglomerates, not for the good of the public.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 02:49 PM

What you decide to archive is really a matter of judgement based on how the recordings were made and what you feel the recordees would feel about the use you intend to put them to.
Personally, if the people on the recordings had no objection in the first place, I have never understood why family members should have any say in the matter beyond being offered the courtesy of being informed what is to happen to them. There again, in thirty odd years of collecting we have never met with any objections from family members.
In the extremely unlikely event of money being involved, we have always donated earnings into the setting up and running costs of archives.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM

Have to admit, like the others, in all my years of recording and publishing online and in books only once have I met with an objection from a family of a recorded person and that was very understandable.
It was of a very young singer and he still had young brothers who might have come across his singing online. We of course respected the wishes of the family. Other than that family members are almost always delighted to know their relative was being honoured in this way.
Another way out is to publish and be damned, then if anyone objects you simply delete what they object to.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: michaelr
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 03:15 PM

Rule of thumb: It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 03:19 PM

"PUBLISH AND BE DAMNED!" That would be a great name for a pubishing company! bob

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM

Some years ago when I was a floor singer at Chelmsford Folk Club, there was a regular who would always sit in the front row with a tape recorder to record the evening. Sadly, he is now dead but his collection has been given to Essex County Record office where it is being digitised.

Another regular was a radio journalist who was always recording performances for both professional purposes and personal interest. When he had a clear-out he too donated his collection to ECR.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 03:36 PM

Ahhh Howard I was going to suggest county record offices. I started a thread a few months back on a subject approaching just this. Unfortunately some reocord offices don't want to know, because they just don't have the space and/or the staff to deal with them. Luckily Essex Record Office is fairly accommodating. Yeah I work there.

I would suggest to Deckman if you are recording for posterity make your first copy on high quality archive CDs. They last longer and if you find an outfit to house the collection they will likely require this.

Now I need to take some of my lunch time to have a listen to those tapes from the Chelmsford Folk Club.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 03:39 PM

It makes no difference if the musicians and singers were paid or not - amateur versus pro has no bearing.   

Unless you have a signature or other proof that the person performing gave permission, that person still retains rights to the performance.

Sharing those performances - with or without pay, is illegal.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 03:44 PM

Ron ... I appreciate your input. If the person is dead, and the recording is of material clearly in "the public domain", why is a release required? bob

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 04:11 PM

If a person is dead, wouldn't any copyright belong to their estate?

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 04:31 PM

What if there is NO copyright and estate? bob

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 04:38 PM

Legal issues aside,
Don't ask questions if you don't want to hear and abide by the answer.
If you're going to ask for permission, take a denial seriously and don't do it.

Russ (Permanent GUEST)

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 04:41 PM

Bob,
Another point to consider is the possibility that you have some original material there. A song or two with no provenance.
All in all i would say that you are in an enviable position.
Mary

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 04:43 PM

If it's any help at all. My recordings from the 60s and 70s of East Riding people singing traditional songs is now held in the British Library. I have just signed a form to agree that they can place all of the recordings online for non-commercial use. There are many others who have done the same thing. The BLSA have not asked me to provide permission slips from any of the families of all the people recorded. However when I published some of the songs in a book in the 80s I had to obtain this permission from all the singers or their relatives.
We have just completed the first phase of the Yorkshire Garland Project and because we were working with a Heritage Lottery grant we thought we'd better do everything by the book so we went through a solicitor who more or less worded our permission slips signed by the singers recorded. It actually states on the slip that the singer signs over to us the complete rights to that particular recording. Not one person objected to signing. Of course this did not affect their rights to any other recordings made of the same songs.
I can't say what the law is in America, but the main rights issue this side of the pond seems to reside in the particular recording or performance rather than the singer or the song. Having said that obviously if it's a song written by someone within copyright then they have the rights to that song in any form.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 04:53 PM

SINS ... Yes, I do feel I am very privileged to have this material, but I also have spent a lifetime collecting it. If I just keep it for myself, there are NO ethical issues involved. Ethical problems only occur if I decide to share it with someone. ETHICS ... sheeuh. bob

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 05:03 PM

Bob - there are a couple of issues. The song may be in public domain, but the arrangement might be copyright. Even if both are public domain, you still have the biggeest issue - above all else, the PERFORMANCE rights still belong to the performer, unless you have evidence that you gave it away. If I recorded you 40 years ago singing "Mary Had A Little Lamb", LEGALLY I could not release or distribute that recording without your permission, or the permission of your heirs.

We've recorded artists for the radio station and received signed agreements. The agreements spell our our rights and the rights of the performer.

You can always go back and contact the surving members and their heirs.   If you cannot find them, keep records on your attempts to do so. You can probably make your archives accessible if you make the proper steps and try to obtain rights.

When you recorded the music, I assume it was done in the open and everyone knew that they were being recorded. What was the stated intent at the time?

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 05:12 PM

There's ethical considerations and there's legal considerations, and they aren't quite the same thing.

Nothing unethical about preserving and passing on music and songs that were performed in public. Legally it might be more complicated in some situations, theoretically at least, but hardly that likely.

I think michaelr hits the nail on the head: "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission." (In the improbable situation where someone finds a way of making money out of, it fair shares for the originators.)

Of course if Deckman;s "150 years ago" had been actually the case...

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 06:09 PM

When I made these recordings, we ALL had recorders around. We all knew we were being recorded. We were friends singing with friends. No commenrcial intent anywhere. On some tapes I can hear some people "teaching" me the chords as we go ... like a "teaching tape." bob

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 06:48 PM

There are a couple of other factors here that go into the mix.

I know that most of the tapes that Bob has are of "hoots" or song fests—parties where people sat around and swapped songs. I was there, and I'm on many of these tapes. Most of the time early on, there was an open-reel tape recorder or two in evidence, and later, there might be a half-dozen battery operated cassette recorders whirring away. Everybody knew they were there, and that they were being recorded.

I think it is important to note that these were not public performances. It was not like someone sneaking a tape recorder into a Gordon Bok or Joan Baez concert.

I believe Bob's intent here (correct me if I'm wrong, Bob) is to get the material off the old tape medium and digitize it for the purposes of his own archives and perhaps for the archives of the Pacific Northwest Folklore Society, and to put some of it on CDs to give to the people who were there at these "hoots."

I don't really see how there can be any rational objection to this.

As I say, I'm on many, perhaps most, of these tapes, I trust what Bob is doing, feel that it is a valuable and worthwhile thing to do (a great nostalgia trip for some of us!), and I truly appreciate the fact that he is willing to take on a monumental task. As far as I, personally, am concerned, Bob has carte blanche.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Artful Codger
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:32 PM

Actually, even if you are recording for yourself, you are ethically obligated to obtain explicit permission first. For legal protection, you should get permission in writing. And if you're going to do that, with the idea of future posterity, why not just get a signed release?

Note that getting permission for personal use means just that; it doesn't grant you the right disseminate those recordings later, when you change your original intentions. Your "feelings" about the matter, or even the feelings of those who'd like to get their hands on those recordings, are immaterial. There's a simple term for what you're proposing: bootlegging.

Now I won't pretend that I haven't encouraged a little bootlegging in my time, when it benefitted me, or that I myself wouldn't love to hear (or even copy) those recordings of yours. But the "greater good" ethical argument just doesn't hold much water, especially when the whole situation could have been so easily avoided in the first place by a little forethought--and common courtesy.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Artful Codger
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:40 PM

Furthermore, the fact that most people are pleased to give their permission to having someone archive old recordings of themselves or their deceased spouse or parents HARDLY means that you don't need to bother. The attitude that "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" is reprehensible. Making a practice of it is a setup for hefty punitive damages, should a case be taken to court.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:50 PM

Bob,
Over the years, I have done what I've done. Ethically, all the times had different sensitivities. We sang anybody's song we damn well wanted to. We wrote songs to any tune we wished to utilize. We taped others all through the mesmerizing years of the folk revival in the USA. I had thousands of tapes of everything. Over the last dozen years I've been unable to play my instruments, but I had tons of too much time on my hands. I went through ALL of the tapes I had of myself and of others doing our music. Computers came along and I saved what I thought of as my favorite songs just for listening onto about 100 full CDs.

The rest went onto at least a couple thousand other CDs.

In the 1970s, all the reels got put onto cassettes--to make it easier to take and play music in the car. During the 1980s and 1990s I put those onto CDs----at least the things I figured I would possibly / probably want to listen to during the years I've got left on this planet.

When I finished the project, ALL those cassettes went to friends who are collectors---or to friends I thought would just find them good listening---and, even, maybe, important listening because some of it were "field recordings" I had made of huge flames of life whose music informed the romance of the treasure hunt I was engaged in all those years.

I sang the songs -- and I recorded them too. As I said, we did what we did. And now some try to say say I was illegal all along. --- I do suspect that goes along with the insanity of our times.

Art

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 08:24 PM

ART ... so far I think you, and Don Firth, have captured best the circumstances under which these recordings were made. And as I have NO intent to make ANY money off these recordings, I feel free to continue on my path. And I also feel you are quite right ... yet again ... that this question of legality is just another reflection of the crazy times we live in. Bob Nelson

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:37 PM

It's a reality of life, but I think it's a shame all these concepts like "rights" and "ethical considerations" have to come into play here. I have never had any wish to make any money making music - I just love to sing, and to share songs with people. For the most part, I think that was the attitude of the singers Bob recorded. Although we may think otherwise nowadays, I think that was the attitude of most of the singers who were recorded by the collectors like Lomax and Kennedy, who are now condemned for not compensating the singers they recorded.

If I were to take a remarkably beautiful picture of an eagle in the sky, would anybody think I should track down the eagle and pay him royalties before sharing my photograph?

We need more beauty in this world, and beauty should be shared - freely. I know that's not how our corporate world works, but I certainly wish it would work that way in our world of folk music.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:50 PM

I'll mark and read this entire thread later, but I'll drop in here with two cents worth.

Bob, I've received royalties for some of Dad's songs, modest amounts from performers who contacted me about it. I wouldn't have known, otherwise, because I haven't done a search. It was nice to get the recognition.

I have boxes and boxes and reels and reels of the same stuff you do. And I would never ask for compensation for any of Dad's performances on those tapes of yours, and would hope the courtesy would be mutual all around with the core group of folks who are likely on those tapes. No one is going to get rich with any of those performances, but they might help fund a scholarship or endowment some day, to support the collection or a family member, and I would like to see anyone who can master such a performance put the funds to that use.

Deciding to go public with this music is a complicated thing, and is a reason why groups like the revived site you and Stew are doing is so important--it helps keep some of those contacts viable for times like this, when you feel the need to track down performers, or their estates.

SRS

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 10:44 PM

The recordings, and the rights to the recordings, belong to the person who made the recordings--lyricist/composer have rights as well, but that's it. The recordings are your property to do with as you see fit--

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 11:02 PM

"I think it is important to note that these were not public performances."

Not really any difference. You are recording an individual whether it is at the kitchen table or Carnegie Hall. Granted there are probabably fewer union regs to deal with in the kitchen.

"The recordings, and the rights to the recordings, belong to the person who made the recordings"

Not exactly. The person who made the recording only owns the physical tape and not the content. The voice that is recorded on it has rights, just as the composer and any musician on the recording. Unless you have a signed release, you cannot do with it as you see fit.

The "ethical" and "legal" way around this is to ATTEMPT to get permission from those who are on the recording, or their families. IF you do not have contact and cannot find them on the internet, you take your chance. In all probability there will be no issues, and the worst would be a request to remove the recording.   There is no cost involved, no money is exchanging hands, and no one needs to be "paid" for their release.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Gurney
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 11:16 PM

If I was the singer, (I'm not) I'd like a courtesy call before you made any money out of it.

If I was doing what you are, -and I am, but in a very small way,- I'd supply a copy to the artist as a matter of courtesy. An offer to his family, if he/she's gone, particularly for someone who achieved fame.

I'd separate the songs into individual files. This is a LOT more trouble to do than just digitising a session, but then you can cut out (or add in) whatever you want. Easier to do tape-to-computer than later, I think.

If I was doing what you are, in the big way, I'd keep a diary record of my hours and costs. Any moans, I'd ask for a pro-rata contribution.

Good for you, anyway, Bob.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 12:00 AM

It's a subtle point, but, in fact, the owner of the tapes is the one who decides how the tapes are used. If they are used for commercial purposes, there are circumstances under which performers and others may have rights to compensation. It is also possible that, due to the circumstances of recording, the time and location of the original recording, and other circumstances, that none of the other rights are enforceable. The claimant has to be able to prove that their claims are valid.

Beyond that, not all reproduction and distribution is for profit--so there is plenty to argue about, and plenty for a judge to decide on, if anyone decides to make an issue of it.

Even beyond that, there is no money to be made here. If anything, it's going to take a big investment in time and money to make this project happen.

Artful Codger, and those who take this opportunity to make forceful statements about punitive damages and such things, unwittingly discourage the few people who have these wonderful documents from sharing them. Why risk expensive legal hassles? Better just to leave the stuff to rot.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 12:12 AM

Interesting comments ... all over the map. Another question: How is it that recognized organizations, such as the Smithsonian Museum, and other recognised repositores get away with not just archiving, but also distributing and selling recordings on a large scale? bob

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 02:54 AM

So the home videos I have of my daughters singing with school choirs and in university recitals that I am currently putting on to DVD and plan to send copies out to my family and some of their friends.

What happens if some of those kids are now professional paid singers/musicians one of them approaching famous. Could I be sued for doing this? I am just thinking about the lame shows that have clips of actors before they were famous. Where did those clips come from? Did someone have to get permission to release them/ Did they sell them?

It is all very worrying.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 02:57 AM

"Sharing those performances - with or without pay, is illegal"
Can anybody clear up this statement; I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to the UK.
If it is the case in relation to folk music it goes to show how the (what did the man say about keeping his gun?) "cold, dead hand" of commercialism gets it grubby paws on everything.
If it had been the case in the past we wouldn't have 'folk' music.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 07:40 AM

Ethically speaking, was it wrong as a mom to videotape these events, without getting permission from a parent of every child participating?

What about the fact that the schools had to buy permissions to perform some of the songs as they were taking in money at concerts and recitals. What does that mean to the home videographer, simply wishing to save the event and potentially share within a tight circle of family and friends?

Seeing all the YouTube videos, I should think there would not be a problem. It cannot benefit big publishing companies to hunt down and level actions against not-for-profit use of copyright material. I also don't see how any subject or relative of a subject can hope to profit if the person who made the recordings is not profitting from making and copying the recordings.

Gods! I wish we could shut down the publishing companies and go back to the guild system. WANTED: 1 Patron or a consortium of patrons for talented folk singer. Will accept room, board and cast away clothes/shoes in lieu of pay.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Alan Day
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 09:17 AM

I have been involved with compiling Anglo, English & Duet Concertina Internationals (Duet due late this Year) and they consist of archive and current concertina players Worldwide.Some of the archives have been recorded privately and if the artist is alive then his or her permission to use the recording is requested.If the person is no longer alive then the relations of the artist are asked.If no information can be found they are used.These archives form a very important part of the collection,without these old tape recordings the artist,their music and style of playing would be lost forever.Most relations welcome and are very emotional that their relation is included in a collection featuring most of the Worlds top players past and present.
Al

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 10:04 AM

Alan Day ... Have you ever had a request DENIED by a family member. If so, could you maybe elaborate on the circumstances. This question is getting close to home. Thanks, Bob

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Alan Day
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 10:38 AM

No Bob, I have followed the correct procedure and I have only received gratitude from family members.(Who get a copy FOC of the finished collection).
For current players most like to hear their recordings to approve them and of course get the necessary agreement on royalties etc Only a few have not answered my Emails, which I really cannot understand, as to be included in amongst the Worlds best and archive greats, is a bit of a short sighted attitude.
Some of the relations have become personal friends who I keep in touch with.
Bob a little tip, a full explanation of what you are trying to achieve and why you wish to include the recording,normally helps to dispel any fears of close relations to the artist.
Al

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 12:30 PM

In re-reading Deckman's original post, I don't think there is anything at all wrong with what you are doing. You are not "publishing" these recordings or making them available for all in a library or online site. What you are doing is preserving a personal collection that you made decades ago. Your purpose is the same as it was originally, based on what you posted, and you received permission at the time when the individuals allowed you to record them.   There is no "ethical" question here.

This is very similar to what Virginia noted about her "home" movies and tapes.

Also, I agree with M.Ted concerning the ownership of the tape - but the performer does have a say in how it is used, unless it is expressed before hand. Otherwise, every single bootleg recording would be legal.

Deckman asked about Smithsonian. They do have "rights" issues that they deal with.   Probably the most famous example was the use of an Alan Lomax recording for "Brother Where Art Thou". They tracked down the singer who was recorded on field recording of a chain gang back in the 1950's to present him with a royalty check - a rather substantial one because of how the song was used.   Frankly, many royalites on their recordings are worth pennies and not worth anyones time to collect.   There are tens of dollars to be made in folk music.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 12:56 PM

Even so, distribution is publication. If you distribute, the owner of the performance is entitled to fair notice.

For example, Gordon Bok allows me to record his material at performances. He has stipulated that the material is his copyright and will not be distributed without his permission. This includes traditional material or other author material which he sings. He makes sure that those people get compensated for their efforts.

When "The Lion King" came out, the family of the person who wrote the original song eventually won a battle over The Lion Sleeps Tonight, even though there had been substantial changes which had invalidated the original copyright. The person who wrote the original song had, in the intervening time, died in poverty.

Bob, your intent is laudable. The knowledge should be preserved. The performers should, at least, be able to authorize the use of their material.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 01:43 PM

I think the Smithsonian reference may have referred to the fact that I allowed their National Museum Of American History to archive, at their request, the slides/photos I took on the folk scene and environs over the years.

Those, plus a few hundred more that weren't slides, are at Bruce Kallick's website, mainly in the album titled "People" at:
http://rudegnu.com/art_thieme.html

Art

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 02:21 PM

...even if you are recording for yourself, you are ethically obligated to obtain explicit permission first.


I can't see where "ethics" comes into it. Surely ethics is about morality, and there is nothing immoral in recording something for yourself. It's just a kind of amplified memory, after all.

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Deckman
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 04:30 PM

"amplified memory" ... I like that. Could be an album title! Bob

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Mark Ross
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 04:34 PM

Ron,

Utah used to say, "You want to make a million dollars in Folk Music? Start with TWO Million!"

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Alan Day
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 05:56 PM

I have an interesting situation,I have obtained very rare recordings of a player who is/was ,in my opinion, one of the best Duet Concertina players ever and only a lad when he did the recordings,shortly afterwards he stopped playing,after he was seriously ill with polio.I have made every effort to trace him and I suspect he is no longer alive.The recordings are so important they will probably be used, but with a bit of regret that unless he comes forward I shall never know if I made the right decision.
Al

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM

Bob, if some or only one family member is opposed to the publication, then I think you would need to determine if they are entitled to object. Someone who is an executor of an estate would be in a position to say "yes." If the estate is completed, then perhaps simply finding a family member who is amenable. Not all estates last in perpetuity like Elvis'. If there are royalties, then you might have to go back to the original administrator.

SRS

Subject: RE: Ethics in archiving?
From: Artful Codger
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 11:00 PM

Had they not tampered with the copyright laws in the U.S. (particularly with the infamous Bono act), many things would have slipped freely into the public domain after a reasonable period for the writers and performers to profit as they chose. But cold commercialism, widespread copyright abuse, greedy litigators (it only takes one to ruin you) and copyright laws unfavorable to "folk evolution" are facts of modern life--ignore them at your own risk. If the laws bother you, why not raise a stink with your congressfolks instead of shooting the messenger?

As for why the Smithsonian and Library of Congress can make their recordings available, (1) they or the collectors mostly obtained signed releases at the time of recording and (2) they enjoy special legal status.

Re the ethics of recording "for yourself": first, the decision whether to be recorded rests with the performer. Granted, as others have pointed out, in some environments permission is implicit by convention. This still does not automatically confer permission to use the recordings however you will. If you record without permission, or if you later decide to start copying those recordings for others, you've crossed into muddy ethical territory, and a possible legal morass as well.

Furthermore, why only after collecting thousands of such recordings for decades are these questions coming up? The thought of archiving them or trying to profit from them can't only now be arising--no one is that naive or stupid, and copyright is hardly a new or obscure issue. So it mostly sounds to me like someone trying to evade the restrictions which other serious collectors abide by, simply because he was too lazy to get releases then or in any of the years he's been recording since. If there is any "tragic loss" due to this negligence, the fault is solely his own.