As I have worked on this list, as well as other projects like
aircraft manufacturer logos and
3-view drawings, one issue I have frequently run into is who has the right to use the scans. I touched on it in a
previous post, but it prevalent enough that I thought it was due a more substantial treatment. Therefore, please find an overview below.
This analysis is divided into two parts: First, a summary of the facts of copyright law in the United States and how it applies to aircraft manuals and, second, an analysis of the various arguments for and against charging for manuals.
Legal SituationAll U.S. federal government documents are public domain and, as the military an arm of the government, this applies to anything they produce as well. The argument for this is that, as a branch of the U.S. government, the U.S. military works on behalf of the American people. Furthermore, taxpayer dollars were indirectly used to fund the creation of the manuals. For both these reasons, they are, in essence "owned" by the public.
When it comes to non-military manuals while the situation is a bit different, many are still technically in the public domain. This is because any document published before 1977 with a
defective copyright notice does not receive protection. What is a defective notice? It is a copyright notice that lacks one of three parts: a copyright logo or the word copyright, a date, or the name of the claimant. As I found in my work, the vast majority of works published by companies in the 1940s or earlier did not include the first of the required components and so are in the public domain. However, there is a caveat to this. One is that the document had to have been
published. A precise definition of publication is hard to come by, but the standard interpretation is usually that it refers to being made available to the public at large. In the context of this discussion it would mean being used outside of the company. So, for example, an operator's manual would qualify, but a blueprint would not.
Now, while that addresses the issue of original copyright, what about scanning? Is a new copyright created when they are scanned? In short, no. Legally, according to
Bridgeman v. Corel mere exact mechanical reproduction of a public domain work does not create a new copyright because, while it does take significant effort and skill, the process lacks
originality.
The facts above, when taken together, results in a strange situation. Were it not for the manuals being in the public domain in the first place, anyone reproducing them would be committing copyright violations. However, the very same fact means that, for better or worse, they have no legal leg to stand on when it comes to other people reusing their scans. Some people attempt to claim their own copyright over scans of military manuals to prevent reproduction, but this claim is
invalid and would therefore be unenforceable.
Lastly, please note that: 1) everything described above only applies to
American documents and 2)
I am not a lawyer.
PositionsThe question now becomes: How do you balance the need for compensation for digitization efforts with the legal situation when it comes to public domain documents? Should you have to pay for them? There are arguments for both sides.
As alluded to in the previous section, these documents are the shared cultural heritage of all Americans. (One could argue that just as we restore and preserve warbirds to commemorate the sacrifices of our frontline airmen, they represent our struggle of the men and women behind the scenes to support them.) They belong to any one person as much as any other.
The diffusion of knowledge is one of the most admirable goals one can aspire to. To put it another way, the goal of a historian is to make more knowledge available to more people. I have chosen to make all of the digitization work I have performed available for free on our museum's
Internet Archive account. However, I also recognize that I am privileged enough to be in a position to do so and not everyone has that opportunity.
At the same time, it takes large amounts of money, time, and effort to scan them. Some of the people behind these collections not only rely on the income from these collections for a portion of their livelihood or to offset the time cost in maintaining them, but have also spent significant sums money to acquire them. Alternatively, in the
case of corporations, the income they make is necessary to justify their existence to leadership. When it comes to museums, proper storage materials are not cheap. Digitization does not replace physical copies and, as such, the need to care for the original materials does not end after the scanning is complete. This applies to digital collections as well. Constant care is necessary to ensure that, for example, data is transferred off of and out of old media formats before they are obsolete or that it is properly backed up in case of losses like file corruption. All of this of course takes proper knowledge and technical training and hiring an additional staff member with this skillset is not cheap. So charging for digital copies, despite the impression all of the high minded rhetoric the previous paragraphs might create, is by no means wrong and I do not necessarily blame anyone for doing so.
The one case I do object to is someone charging for scans that someone else has made available for free elsewhere. To be clear, I am not referring to two people independently scanning two separate but identical paper copies, but instead someone downloading a digital file of a manual that another person has digitized and then repackaging it for sale without their permission. In this case it is a purely a profit seeking motive, does not credit the hard work that the other person has done and deceives any purchasers by not stating there is a free copy available.
So, how does one deal with this conflict? One answer is to simply not use any materials without permission - regardless of copyright - unless public domain or an equivalent license (such as
Creative Commons) is explicitly stated. I am aware of one organization that does not host manuals - even public domain examples - unless they personally scanned them or can sign an agreement with a donor. Furthermore, it is always good practice to provide credit and a link or reference to the source - even when the content is public domain. This is not only fair, but is also beneficial for other researchers. For example, where one manual came from there are likely more and someone looking for a different, but similar, manual would appreciate knowing where to look. Providing credit may also benefit the digitizer by providing more exposure and therefore driving more people to their store. It is really a win-win for everyone.
In conclusion, I hope this was an informative look at the rules surrounding digital copies of vintage aircraft manuals. I would say I have tried to be as even handed as possible and give weight to both sides, but in reality trying to force it was unnecessary as the situation is naturally far from black and white. Nevertheless, should anyone feel that I missed something or overly weighted a certain point of view I welcome any constructive criticism on the subject.