Introduction
Armistice Night is a painting that was created by George Luks in 1918 in the U.S just when the first World War ended and I believe it helps signifiy how people felt after the end of the war as it was painted at the same time. It shows most of the flags of the allies that fought in the war along with troops walking down a street being celebrated for their bravery. It also shows the excitement of the people as the war is finally over. The painting is in the public domain currently due to copyright laws in the U.S stating that the painting is now in the public domain as the laws stated that the copyright lasts seventy years after Luks death.
Copyright Analysis
The painting is currently in the public domain as the copyright for the painting expired in 2010, seventy years after the death of Luks. Luks had painted many other works during his life time and the rest of his works are in the public domain and can be used for personal or commercial use. During the time, the copyright on the painting was able to be renewed every 14 years during Luks life but after he died the copyright lasted for 28 years after his death until it was extended to 70 years under the Chapter 3 – Circular 92 which stated that the copyright would last during the authors life and then plus seventy years. The painting along with the rest of Luks works were copyrighted until 2010 when they officially became public domain. If the work was still copyrighted, then depending on what type of copy right it is, you may or may not be able to use it. Attribution copyright means that the others can use the work and modify and distribute the work with the proper citations and credit given back to the original author. No derivative means that the work can only distribute exact copies of the work with credit. Share alike is when the work can only be shared under the same license. Non commercial copyright is when the work can be edited and distributed but can’t be used to make money. Armistice Night doesn’t have any of these copyrights and is in the public domain meaning that the work can be used for anything such as personal and commercial use and works that have entered the public domain can’t be copyrighted and tends to be works that have had their copyright expire.
Course Readings
While the work in question Armistice Night is a painting, most works today can be online. Armistice Night is on the web and should be subject to the same copyright laws. In “Owning the Past” it states that while work is online and there is some flexibility to what historians online can do, “The Law is the Law” meaning that copyright applies online just as it does offline. However, there is more flexibility online as those online can edit more than just pictures and can remix music and photos and could combine everything. This makes it harder for historians online to properly quote things or give citations as things might not be citied or quoted correctly. Owning the Past also provides as chart to how copyright works for works online and offline and Armistice Night was painted in 1918 and would officially be in public domain and free to edit and remix online however is still subject to laws regarding copyright even online. The copyright for Armistice Night was by a single person in 1918 but what happens when the copyright is owned by a corporation? Doctorow’s article on Mickey Mouse talked about what happens and the dire effects it has. The article talks about how Disney continues to this day to lobby to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse. Under normal circumstances, Mickey Mouse should have entered the public domain years ago but due to the lobbying of Disney, The copyright has been extended time and time again. This raises the question of extending a copyright when it should be in the public domain and free to use as inspiration. Disney argues that Mickey Mouse still makes them money while those that are against the copyright argue that Mickey Mouse is not only inspiration but the copyright that Disney uses makes it harder for those to have anything related to Mickey Mouse without the proper agreements. Things being in the public domain is good but when corporations have enough money and are around long enough, works with copyrights could be abused and extended so that it never enters the public domain.
Implications for Digital History Projects
Copyright limits the work that historians can do in many ways. Certain forms of copyright can make it difficult to publish a work for educational purposes or for preservation of a study as it violates forms of copyright that limit the distribution of the product. Copyright could also prevent historians from making enough money from the works they publish due to copyrights on for example, a photo they used or a quote from a book. Copyrights have largely a negative effect on museums and websites that talk about history as they have to be more careful with the sources they use as violating a copyright would cost either of them money due to charges. I think there is ethical concerns to limiting some works if its a sensitive topic such as a painting depicting a recent conflict however, I believe that historical images from 30 years from the past would be fine compared to the 70 year plus the authors life. I want to say that historical documents and images should flow freely as they can help contribute to the advancement of a certain topic or help those get a better grasp of ideas but I also know that people rely on copyrights to make a living such as an author. I think that the copyright should be shortened to at least the authors life so at least historians have more to work with while those that need to make money can still have a living.
Conclusion
Due to how copyright laws are currently, Armistice Night is currently in the public domain as the copyright has expired over a decade ago and can be used privately or be edited and used commercially. This is good as those that are studying the first world war can get somewhat of a grasp on how those felt after the war ended and can be used for educational uses and can be referenced in historical documents. I think some copyright laws need to be adjusted as some interfere with professional and academic purposes as people need to be careful with what they are using but I also see the importance of copyright as it allows some to make a living off of those that reference the copyrighted work.