Table of Contents
Highlighted Web Site -
Internet Archive
Feature Articles
Recent Lessons from the Courts: The Changing Landscape of Copyright in a Digital Age
by Brett I. Miller, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP
bimiller@mlb.com
Much has been written, and even more said, about the emergence of digital technologies and the way they have fundamentally changed the means by which collecting institutions compile, manage, organize, and disseminate the information that is their life-blood. Notwithstanding the undeniable and essentially limitless benefits afforded by such technologies, the individuals charged with overseeing digital image collections currently find themselves at an uncomfortable intersection between the practical realities of these technologies and the abstract legal regime (otherwise known as copyright law), which governs the nature and scope of their institution's and third parties' rights in the images comprising these collections. (1) Unfortunately, this position will not be an enviable one for some time to come, as courts and legislatures have only just begun to develop and apply the ground rules for the use and protection of digital images. In the meantime, given the paucity of judicial and legislative guidance on this front, those responsible for managing digital image collections can only attempt to apply existing principles to new digital realities, and glean as much as possible from the incremental pronouncements of courts struggling to resolve disputes at the point where existing law and new technology collide.
Two recent cases, The Bridgeman Art Library, LTD v. Corel Corp. (2) and Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. (3) illustrate just how difficult reconciling new technology with existing copyright principles can be. More importantly, these cases also provide a valuable, albeit limited, insight into the direction the law may be taking with regard to fundamental questions about the nature and scope of protection to be afforded to digital images and digital image collections.
In Bridgeman the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the question of whether color transparencies of public domain works of art demonstrate a sufficient level of originality to be protectable under copyright law. Bridgeman involved a dispute between a British company engaged in the business of licensing reproduction rights in works of art and the Canadian software producer Corel. In its complaint, the Plaintiff Bridgeman alleged that Corel infringed its exclusive rights in 120 transparencies and digital image files when Corel used those to produce a CD-ROM product comprised of 700 digital images of paintings by European masters that were in the public domain. Corel responded by arguing, among other things, that the Bridgeman transparencies and digital files were not sufficiently original to be protected under copyright law.
Ruling in favor of Corel and dismissing Bridgeman's claims, the court found that "substantially exact photographic reproductions" of two-dimensional works of art are not independently copyrightable because they lack the requisite degree of originality required for copyright protection. (4) In support of this holding, the court asserted that while most photography is sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection, "there has been no independent creation, no distinguishable variation from preexisting works, nothing recognizably the author's own creation that sets Bridgeman's reproductions apart from the images of the famous works it copied." (5) Consequently, the court held that any unauthorized use of those reproductions does not violate copyright law.
To the extent that Bridgeman stands for the broad proposition that no copyright interest can be claimed in a digital reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain work of art, the case unquestionably undercuts one of the most important weapons available to institutions to police the unauthorized copying and distribution of digital image collections. However, the Bridgeman holding concerns only reproductions of two-dimensional works in the public domain. This leaves reproductions of three-dimensional objects - which arguably involve a greater degree of "originality" by virtue of the selection of backdrop, lighting, perspective and other creative choices involved in their creation - still subject to copyright. Moreover, Bridgeman does nothing to impact or undermine the separate and independent copyright interest that institutions may have in digital image collections as "compilations." Compilations are works formed by the collection and assembling of pre-existing elements that, standing alone, may not be subject to copyright protection. Accordingly, although Bridgeman may affect an institution's ability to claim copyright in reproductions of particular images, the case does not undermine the copyright interest an institution may have in the selection, arrangement and coordination of the particular elements comprising a given digital image collection.
While Bridgeman represents the first judicial pronouncement on whether a digital reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain work of art is sufficiently original for copyright protection as a threshold matter, a case decided in December of last year, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., provides critical insight into how the fair use doctrine will be applied in the digital context. The fair use doctrine is arguably the most important limitation on the rights granted to copyright owners. Fair use is a defensive claim that serves to protect third parties from liability for conduct that may otherwise constitute actionable infringement. The current federal copyright statute codifies this equitable doctrine by providing, in relevant part, that "the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . . scholarship, or research is not an infringement . . ." (6) Courts look to the facts of each case and weigh four factors to determine whether liability will attach. (7)
In Arriba Soft, a federal district court in California held that the display of "thumbnail" versions of copyrighted images in a so-called "visual search engine" was fair use. The plaintiff in Arriba Soft, photographer Leslie Kelly, maintained two Internet Web sites containing a selection of his copyrighted photographs. The Defendant Ditto (formerly known as Arriba Soft), operated a visual image search engine, known as the Arriba Vista Searcher, that allowed users to retrieve thumbnail images responsive to their specific content queries. The visual image search engine at issue in Arriba Soft also permitted users to view a full-size version of each retrieved image, a description of its dimensions, and the Web site address for the source of a given image. Interestingly, the full-size image was not technically located on the Ditto Web site. Instead, the image was displayed by opening a link to the site where the image originated, with all other content on the originating Web page filtered out. Kelly sued Ditto for copyright infringement, among other violations.
In a decision that explicitly acknowledged the fundamental importance of search engines in the functioning of the Internet, the court in Arriba Soft found that Ditto's actions constituted prima facie infringement of Kelly's exclusive right to reproduce and display his works. Although clearly an infringement, the court ultimately found Ditto immune from liability, holding that Ditto's activities constituted a fair use of Kelly's copyrighted photographs.
In applying the four fair use factors, the court first examined the nature of Ditto's use of the protected material to determine whether it was commercial or educational in nature. Notwithstanding the clearly "commercial" qualities of the Ditto Web site, the court found that Ditto's use of the photographs was of "less exploitative nature than more traditional" types of commercial use. (8) More important, however, the court found Ditto's use to be "significantly transformative" in that its use of the protected images "is very different from the use for which the images were originally created." Specifically, the court distinguished Kelly's use of the images, which it characterized as an "artistic" or "esthetic" use, from the defendant's use, which it described as "functional" (i.e., to catalog and improve access to a comprehensive collection of images on the Internet).
With regard to the other three fair use factors, the court found that the second and third factors - the creative nature of the copyrighted work and the amount and substantiality of the taking - weighed against a finding of fair use. According to the court, the fourth factor - the effect of the use on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work - favored the defendant. In the end, however, the court found first factor to be dispositive. In support of its finding fair use, the court opined that "where, as here, a new use and new technology are evolving, the broad transformative purpose of the use weighs more heavily than the inevitable flaws in its early stages of development."(9)
For institutions compiling and managing digital image collections, the Arriba Soft case would appear to represent a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the case reinforces the long-held presumption of many non-profit educational and/or research institutions that reproduction and distribution of copyrighted images for the purpose of including such images in image collections or other databases constitutes a permissible fair use of otherwise protected works. On the other hand, to the extent collecting institutions wish to exert proprietary claims against third parties for unauthorized use of specific images in their collections (i.e., to the degree copyright can be claimed in reproductions of public domain works in a post-Bridgeman world) or in a collection as a whole (i.e., as a compilation), the Arriba Soft case appears to favor a liberal application of the fair use doctrine that may arguably insulate those who use the contents of digital image collections for clearly "commercial" purposes from infringement liability.
It should be noted that the Bridgeman and Arriba Soft decisions do not necessarily stand as final words on the issues presented in those cases. Rather, they merely represent the views of two federal district courts struggling to apply existing copyright principles in the context of specific disputes and particularized sets of facts. Other courts, however, are not necessarily bound by the approaches taken in these cases. Because the law evolves though the gradual accretion of case law it is critical that collecting institutions remain watchful of the directions other courts take in this area. To this end, the Internet provides numerous helpful resources to learn about current developments in copyright law, including the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute and the Berkeley Digital Library SunSite.
(1) The following publication provides a thorough introduction to the copyright issues that pertain to cultural institutions: Michael S. Shapiro and Brett I. Miller, A Museum Guide to Copyright and Trademark (Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 1999). For a list of Web sites that focus on legal issues in digital domain, see the FAQ in the October 15, 1998 issue of RLG DigiNews.
(2) The Bridgeman Art Library, LTD. v. Corel Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), on reconsideration, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (1999)
(3) Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 1999).
(4) The Bridgeman Art Library, LTD, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 199.
(5) Id., 25 F. Supp. 2d at 427.
(7) The four fair use factors are (1) the purpose and character of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (2) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Id.
(8) Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 77 F. Supp. 2d. at 1119.
(9) Id. at 1121.
The Library of Congress/Ameritech Competition
by Barbara Paulson, Senior Program Officer, Division of
Preservation and Access, National Endowment for the Humanities
(Program Officer, LC/Ameritech Competition, 1996-97)
BPaulson@neh.gov
In early 1996 the Library of Congress received a $2 million leadership gift from the Ameritech Corporation to support the addition of collections nationwide to American Memory, the cornerstone of the Library's National Digital Library Program. The gift supported three annual competitions to which libraries, museums, archives, and historical societies throughout the United States submitted their plans for mounting digital collections to be incorporated into American Memory.
Staff of the Commission on Preservation and Access (now the Council on Library and Information Resources) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (especially the Division of Preservation and Access) worked with Library staff to construct guidelines and carry out the evaluation process. Because the terms of the Ameritech gift limited its application to access made possible by digital technology, the Competition mandated a singleness of focus that was unusual for the three agencies.
Panels of teachers, scholars, librarians, and technical experts from across the country were convened to select projects on the basis of their intrinsic interest and contribution to American Memory as well as their technical viability. From 1996 through 1999, the competition made 23 awards to 33 institutions. At this time, nine projects are online and integrated into American Memory. Though the competition has come to a close, 14 projects have yet to be completed, so this report, then, is from work in progress.
The Library of Congress assigned two members of its staff as technical advisers to the Competition, Caroline R. Arms and Carl Fleischhauer. In order to offer guidance to potential applicants, the technical advisers prepared three documents to supplement the Guidelines. These documents have undergone continuous revision, so that they now represent "the collection-digitization effort of the American Memory pilot program (1990-1994) and the operational National Digital Library Program (1995-1998)."
Issues related to copyright and intellectual property rights were kept to a minimum by focusing the Competition on materials in the public domain, with many projects having a terminal date of 1920.
The Library encouraged a variety of technical approaches, including those that it had not itself yet tested. Award winners were required to create scanned images compatible with those in American Memory, but they were able to choose between mounting their collections at their own site and linking to the Library of Congress via a URL and the Web, or sending a digital copy of their collection to the Library of Congress, where it would be mounted on the Library's own server. Likewise, though there was great leeway in the format of descriptive data, in order to provide transparent searching with American Memory, projects were required to provide machine-readable indexes, catalog records, or finding aids that would allow the Library to perform centralized indexing to integrate the new collections with existing collections.
Detailed analysis of the applications submitted to the Competition and of the projects to which awards were made necessarily awaits the completion of more of the projects, but a few observations can be made at this point. The years in which the Competition was conducted were ones of notable change in the way institutions dealt with digital technology. In the first year of the Competition, the balance of the awards went to projects that presented digital images of mainly visual materials; only one was given to an institution that created transcribed and marked-up text along with page images, another to an institution that proposed to provide access to a heterogeneous collection of manuscripts, newspapers, and photographs. By the second year, perhaps responding to the needs of increasingly experienced users, award-winners proposed to digitize more complex collections of mixed materials and use a variety of access methodologies; only two were limited to visual images. In the third year, every award was to a collection that included searchable text, usually along with other materials. Clearly repositories across the country were taking on the challenges of text transcription and markup, as well as the many-faceted issues of selection.
Another change in the nature of the projects was created by the terms of the Competition. In the second and third year, incentives were provided for projects that involved a collaboration of two or more institutions, usually with a mentoring component. Year two saw two collaborative projects out of seven, and year three, four out of six. A program that was initially grounded in the ability of the Library of Congress and a single awardee to work together now involved the collections and staff of up to as many as three more institutions into the mix. The University of Chicago won an award in year one of the Competition, and in year three won another award in collaboration with the Filson Club Historical Society in Louisville, Kentucky. As Alice Schreyer, the project director from the University of Chicago, commented, "Our readiness to tackle technical and inter-institutional issues, and to serve in a mentoring capacity for a smaller institution embarking on its first major digital initiative, reflect the enormous growth of expertise and organizational structure for planning and implementing retrospective digitization projects at the University of Chicago Library and the broader research library community."
In their final reports for the completed projects, nine project directors have reported on Lessons Learned. The report from the University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill expresses a familiar and common theme: "Virtually every activity was more difficult and complicated than we initially expected it to be, but by the end of the grant we had made significant progress with all of them." These reports give considerable detail about day-to-day problems with specific software, workflow, and staffing and how they were managed. Recurring themes that emerge from the reports sent to the Library are: the usefulness of small-scale pilot projects, the requirements of collaboration, and the need for rigorous quality control.
As individual repositories and the Library of Congress worked through the challenges involved in order to create an integrated and interoperable site, staff members realized that one of the benefits of this activity was the understanding of the nature of the collaboration itself. The Lessons Learned from the collaborative and mentoring projects that were encouraged in the second and third years of the Competition can be anticipated to reflect this development.
Though the number of items to be dealt with in each project was not large, several of the projects negotiated to spend the first few months of the grant period testing the plan of work on a yet smaller sampling of their materials. This enabled them to bring together all the staff involved in the project, work out details of contracts with vendors, and establish production workflow. The mini-pilot established that the institution's records and those of the Library of Congress could be integrated. With a feasible base from which to start, later adjustments were minimized. For all the reporting institutions, the LC/Ameritech project has itself acted as a catalyst or pilot project, developing expertise that will form the basis for further development of a digitization program.
Certainly working from a distance with the staff of the Library of Congress was a new experience, but project staff also found that it was necessary to work in a new way with colleagues at their home institutions. Many reported that management itself was more collaborative than had been the case in other kinds of projects, recognizing that all parts of the workflow were interdependent. This high level of cooperation, however, itself caused delays. In order to ensure clear communication, face-to-face project management meetings were essential and frequent, and several reported on the benefits of setting up a controlled listserv for the duration. Project staffs brought together representatives from most of the traditional areas of library management - preservation, collection management, collection development, curatorial staff - with those in information and imaging technology. Several projects called on scholars for subject expertise to help in the selection process and to provide supporting materials and an interpretive framework for Web presentation. They reported that they were doing more thinking about how to prepare materials for a popular audience.
Some of the projects spoke to their concern for tight quality control in both administrative and technical areas - from analyzing the causes for poor image quality to riding herd on student assistants. Duke University reported about the procedures manual that it developed, with "exact instruction on the scanning process," and the need for constant revision. The projects took into account considerations such as the use of the data presented, the purpose of the project, and how issues of image quality related to the expected audience.
Deanna Marcum, president of the Council on Library and Information Resources, has said of the experience of the Competition: "Thanks to the Ameritech grants, libraries across the country were able to consider themselves part of the digital information infrastructure. There was much creative thinking about how collections in public and academic libraries in all regions of the country fit with the American Memory collections of the Library of Congress. Libraries gave careful consideration to how their local collections would benefit the larger community. We can hope that such discussions will continue."
(My thanks go to Caroline Arms, Carl Fleischhauer, and Ariel Rosenblum, whose conversations added much to my understanding of the LC/Ameritech Competition. Also to Michael Hall, who generously let me read and borrow from his unpublished description of the history of the Competition at an earlier stage.)
|
Highlighted Web Site
|
FAQs
I've heard that some OCR programs can now process color images. Is this true and if so, does color imaging lead to improved OCR results?
This issue's FAQ is answered by Kenn Dahl, President and Founder of Prime Recognition, a producer of OCR software.
Business documents are fairly simple black-and-white pages, so OCR has historically been focused on 1-bit images. OCR companies have experimented with color and grayscale image support, but with poor results until very recently. In 1999 color and grayscale support improved to the point that the technology could be considered practical. Color images, for example, can consume 50 times more RAM than bitonal images, can double or triple OCR times, and can hurt OCR accuracy as much as help it. However, the availability of inexpensive RAM, faster CPUs, and improved OCR technologies to process color data means that OCR can now finally be used on color images.
Most OCR software that handles color images does so by first binarizing the text (i.e. converting it to black-and-white). Consequently, users should not expect the same speed when OCRing color, and may in fact see some loss in accuracy when compared to the same text scanned bitonally.
OCR software producers have been relatively quiet about claims related to the color capability of their recognition engines. It is difficult to quantify the impact of color because controlled tests that compare the speed and accuracy of various OCR products on color vs. bitonal images have yet to be carried out. This raises some questions: How should one evaluate the tradeoffs between capturing color content and maximizing OCR performance? How does one choose an OCR product when circumstances demand color scanning?
If you are contemplating using one of the less expensive OCR products, it may be worthwhile to take representative samples of your own materials and run some tests. For high-end OCR products, you could try asking the software producer to process a few samples for you and send back the results. At the very least, ask the software producer for concrete performance data on color material. Also, keep in mind that differences in OCR software's underlying technology or the presence of features such as batch processing may have more of an impact on speed and accuracy than whether the images to be OCRed are color.
Calendar of Events
Workshops
on Management of Photographic Collections
May 1-5, 2000, Copenhagen, Denmark
June 5-9, 2000, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The European Commission on Preservation and Access is sponsoring
two workshops as part of the project, Safeguarding European
Photographic Images for Access (SEPIA). The goal of the workshops is
to inform librarians, archivists, and curators in charge of
photographic materials about the role of new technology in collection
management. Important questions such as how to combine digital
imaging with established preservation methods in an integrated
strategy will be explored.
Introduction to Still & Moving Image Metadata for the
Visual & Performing Arts Workshops
May 31, 2000, London, England
June 30, 2000, Glasgow, Scotland
Sponsored by the Performing
Arts Data Service (PADS); the
Technical Advisory Service for Images
(TASI); and the Visual Arts Data
Service (VADS), these workshops will introduce the concepts,
issues, and practical application of still and moving image metadata
in the creation of digital resources.
Digital
Reality II: Preserving Our Electronic Heritage
June 5, 2000, Boston, MA
How can libraries, archives, and organizations cope with the
ever-increasing amount of digital material? Will future generations
be able to read our CD-ROMs and computer files? Questions such as
these will be discussed at this conference, co-sponsored by the
NELINET Preservation Advisory Committee, the John F. Kennedy Library,
and the Northeast Document Conservation Center.
American
Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC):
Annual Conference
June 8-13, 2000 , Philadelphia, PA
The annual AIC conference will focus on the preservation of
electronic media.
The
Joint Information Systems Committee and the Coalition for Networked
Information Conference
June 14-16, 2000, Stratford upon Avon, England
Experts from both the United States and the United Kingdom will
explore and contrast major developments in fields such as
intellectual property rights, digital preservation, middleware,
access to digital resources, and virtual universities.
Digital
Libraries and Digital Imaging: the Big Picture
July 7, 2000, Chicago , IL
Held prior to the American Library Association annual conference,
this event will focus on the meaning and cultural impact of digital
libraries.
Digital
Futures 2000: The Royal Photographic Society Imaging Science Group
Annual Conference
September 11 - 13, 2000, University of Westminster, Harrow, UK
Call for papers. Digital Futures 2000 is one of the first
conferences in Britain that unites image science with the needs of
imaging, archiving and conservation using digital technologies. This
is an opportunity for archivists, curators and creators of images to
communicate their needs to image scientists.
Fourth European
Conference on Digital Libraries - ECDL20
Sept. 18-20, 2000, Lisbon, Portugal
Call for papers and panels. The submission deadline is May 1,
2000.
The goal of the ECDL series of conferences is to bring together
researchers, industry professionals, and user communities, in a
reference forum for discussion of new emerging issues, requirements,
proposals, politics, and solutions. The conference will promote
opportunities for the exchange of ideas and knowledge between all the
different perspectives relevant for digital libraries.
Preservation
2000: An International Conference on the Preservation and Long Term
Accessibility of Digital Materials
December 7-8, 2000, York , England
Call for papers. The submission deadline is May 30, 2000.
Preservation 2000 will bring together organizations and individuals
currently working with digital archives and preservation to share,
disseminate, and discuss current key issues concerning the
preservation of digital materials.
Announcements
VADS/TASI
Guides to Good Practice Now Available on the Web
The Visual Arts Data Service has released the Web version of
Creating Digital Resources for the Visual Arts: Standards and Good
Practice. The guide will introduce new users of technology to its
applications, and provide comprehensive guidance on issues related to
digital technology.
New
Reports from the Council on Library and Information Resources
CLIR recently published two new reports, Collections, Content,
and the Web and Enduring Paradigm, New Opportunities: The
Value of the Archival Perspective in the Digital Environment.
Oxford Text
Archive Guide to Creating and Documenting Electronic Texts
The Oxford Text Archive has published a guide to assist users in
the basic steps involved in creating and documenting an electronic
text or similar digital resource.
Metadata
for Digital Preservation: The Cedars Project Outline
Specification
Developed by the Cedars Project Team, comments are requested on
this outline for a metadata framework to ensure long-term
preservation for digital objects.
New Inventory
of Primary Web Resources in the Distributed Digital Research Library
of Germany
Now available is the inventory of resources that have been funded
by the program for the retrospective digitization of library holdings
of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
Catalog of Digital
Collections
A joint project of the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Memory of the World Programme and
the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions(IFLA), this site aims to catalog major digitized
heritage collections and on-going international digitization
projects.
National
Library of Australia Draft Preservation Metadata Set
Developed for internal use and review, the National Library of
Australia has prepared these draft guidelines for the management and
preservation of digital collections.
Digital Access to
Australian Publications, 1840-45
Periodicals and novels published in Australia during the period
1840-45 are now freely accessible online via the Web. Digitized as
part of the ARC funded Australian Cooperative Digitisation Project,
these works provide a record of the development of Australian
colonial culture.
DLM-Forum Web
Site
The Web site has conference reports that focus on strategies for
managing and preserving electronic records.
Hotlinks Included in This Issue
Feature Articles
Access
Aids and Interoperability:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award/docs/interop.html
Berkeley Digital
Library SunSite: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/copyright/
Cornell
Law School's Legal Information Institute:
http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html
Digital Formats
for Content Reproduction:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/formats.html
Digital
Historical Collections: Types, Elements, and Construction:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/elements.html
FAQ in the October 15, 1998 issue of RLG DigiNews:
http://www.rlg.org/preserv/diginews/diginews2-5.html#faq
Lessons
Learned: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award/lessons/lessons.html
Highlighted Web Site
Internet Archive:
http://www.archive.org/
FAQs
Prime Recognition:
http://www.primerecognition.com/
Calendar of Events
American Institute for
Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC): Annual
Conference: http://aic.stanford.edu/conf/
Digital Futures
2000: The Royal Photographic Society Imaging Science Group Annual
Conference: http://leonardo.itrg.wmin.ac.uk/DF2000/
Digital Libraries
and Digital Imaging: the Big Picture:
http://www.lita.org/ac2000/preconf.html
Digital
Reality II: Preserving Our Electronic Heritage:
http://www.nelinet.net/conf/pres/pres00/digital.htm
Fourth European
Conference on Digital Libraries - ECDL20:
http://www.bn.pt/org/agenda/ecdl2000/
The
Joint Information Systems Committee and the Coalition for Networked
Information Conference:
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/events/jisc-cni-2000/programme.html
Performing Arts Data Service
(PADS): http://www.pads.ahds.ac.uk
Preservation 2000:
An International Conference on the Preservation and Long Term
Accessibility of Digital Materials:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cedars/Call.htm
Technical Advisory Service for Images
(TASI): http://www.tasi.ac.uk
Visual Arts Data Service (VADS):
http://vads.ahds.ac.uk
Workshops
on Management of Photographic Collections:
http://www.knaw.nl/ecpa/sepia/events/register.html
Announcements
Catalog of Digital Collections:
http://thoth.bl.uk/
Digital Access to Australian
Publications, 1840-45: http://www.nla.gov.au/acdp/
DLM-Forum Web Site:
http://www.dlmforum.eu.org/
Metadata for
Digital Preservation: The Cedars Project Outline Specification:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cedars/OutlineSpec.htm
National Library
of Australia Draft Preservation Metadata Set:
http://www.nla.gov.au/preserve/pmeta.html
New Inventory of
Primary Web Resources in the Distributed Digital Research Library of
Germany: http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gdz/
New Reports
from the Council on Library and Information Resources:
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/reports.html
Oxford Text
Archive Guide to Creating and Documenting Electronic Texts:
http://ota.ahds.ac.uk/documents/creating/
VADS/TASI
Guides to Good Practice Now Available on the Web:
http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/guides/guides_intro.html
Publishing Information
RLG DigiNews (ISSN 1093-5371) is a newsletter conceived by the members of the Research Libraries Group's PRESERV community. Funded in part by the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), it is available internationally via the RLG PRESERV Web site (http://www.rlg.org/preserv/). It will be published six times in 2000. Materials contained in RLG DigiNews are subject to copyright and other proprietary rights. Permission is hereby given for the material in RLG DigiNews to be used for research purposes or private study. RLG asks that you observe the following conditions: Please cite the individual author and RLG DigiNews (please cite URL of the article) when using the material; please contact Jennifer Hartzell, jlh@notes.rlg.org, RLG Corporate Communications, when citing RLG DigiNews.
Any use other than for research or private study of these materials requires prior written authorization from RLG, Inc. and/or the author of the article.
RLG DigiNews is produced for the Research Libraries Group, Inc. (RLG) by the staff of the Department of Preservation and Conservation, Cornell University Library. Co-Editors, Anne R. Kenney and Oya Y. Rieger; Production Editor, Barbara Berger Eden; Associate Editor, Robin Dale (RLG); Technical Researcher, Richard Entlich; Technical Assistant, Allen Quirk.
This symbol is
used to highlight features that pertain to digital preservation.
All links in this issue were confirmed accurate as of April 12, 2000.
Please send your comments and questions to preservation@cornell.edu .
