Contents - Previous - Next
Legal issues in audiovisual archives
1.8 Legal issues facing audiovisual archives
1.9 Legal issues in AV archives: an introduction
1.10 Copyright, neighbouring rights and film archives
1.11 UNESCO AV Copyright meeting report. December 5-6 1994
1.8 Legal issues facing audiovisual archives
Moving Image and Recorded Sound Heritage
The moving image and recorded sound heritage of [the country] shall include, but not be limited, to the following,
(a) Recorded sound, film, television or other productions comprising moving images and/or recorded sound created or released within [the country] or by or with nationals of [the country] and/or with any other relevance to [the country], whether or not primarily intended for public release.
(b) Objects, materials, works and intangibles relating to the moving image and recorded sound media, whether seen from a technical, industrial, cultural, historical or other viewpoint, this shall include material relating to [the country's] film, television, broadcasting and sound recording industries such as literature, scripts, stills, posters, advertising materials and artifacts such as technical equipment and costumes.
(c) It also includes such concepts as the perpetuation of obsolescent skills and environments associated with the presentation and reproduction of these media documents.
Clear and comprehensive definitions of the terms to be used in this context are usually a primary problem of legislation. The following definitions are proposed, based on different sources:
The definition of the moving image and recorded sound heritage is mainly based on a proposal of the Australian National Film and Sound Archives, seemingly the most comprehensive and exhaustive enumeration of the subject of concern.
Audiovisual materials are to be understood as:
(i) visual recordings (with or without soundtrack) irrespective of their physical base and recording process used, such as films, filmstrips, microfilms, slides, magnetic tapes, kinescopes, videograms (videotapes, videodiscs), optically readable laser discs;
(a) intended for public reception either by television or by means of projection on screens or by any other means,
(b) intended to be made available to the public,
(ii) sound recordings irrespective of their physical base and the recording process used, such as magnetic tapes, discs, soundtracks or audiovisual recordings, optically read laser discs;
(a) intended for public reception by means of broadcasting or any other means,
(b) intended to be made available to the public. All these materials are cultural materials.
The definition of audiovisual materials is intended to cover a maximum of forms and formats, trying to leave it open for further technical developments.
Moving images shall be taken to mean any series of images recorded on a support (irrespective of the method of recording or of the nature of the support, such as film, tape, disc used in their initial or subsequent form of recording), with or without accompanying sound, which when projected impart an impression of motion and which are intended for communication or distribution to the public or are made for documentation purposes.
They shall be taken to include, inter alia, items in the following categories:
(a) cinematographic productions (such as feature films, short films, popular science films, newsreels and documentaries, animated and educational films);
(b) television productions made by or for broadcasting organizations,
(c) videographic productions contained in videograms other those than referred to above.
National production shall be taken to mean audiovisual materials, the maker or at least one of the co-makers of which has headquarters or habitual residence within the territory of [the country].
Transmission programme shall mean any body of material produced by broadcasting organizations for transmission to the public by radio waves, cable or satellite.
Recording is the process whereby sound and image signals are embodied on a recording medium with the aim of preserving them for subsequent reproduction, and by extension the artifact so created.
Reproduction is the making of a copy or copies of a recording or a substantial part of that recording.
The national cultural heritage of [the country] shall include all its creative expressions in audiovisual form.
It is the leading objective of this [law] to provide for adequate preservation of the moving image and recorded sound heritage of [the country].
In order to safeguard the cultural heritage in audiovisual form and to promote knowledge about and research into the audiovisual production, audiovisual material and material relating thereto shall be collected, documented, preserved and archived as provided for in this act.
The Designated Archives for Audiovisual Material
An audiovisual archives administration shall be responsible for the safeguarding and use of the cultural heritage in audiovisual form. The organization of audiovisual archives varies considerably from country to country and from institution to institution, in governmental, semi-private and private firms. From our comparative analysis of various internal rules and statutes it can be stated that it is obviously unsatisfactory if a multiplicity of institutions exist in a single country without adequate resources to enable them to preserve the material under correct conditions and without a clear definition of their respective mandates.
There is no internationally approved model for a standard structure of audiovisual archives. What becomes obvious from the different experiences is that discussions on organization and structure should, as far as possible, include management for film, video and recorded sound collections, which would help to apply uniform principles to preservation, restoration, cataloguing and documentation.
The audiovisual archives administration shall be under the political jurisdiction of the [Minister of .. ] who shall designate the appropriately equipped premise or premises where sequences to be preserved should be stored. These premises shall together form the Designated Archives for Audiovisual Material of [the country].
The Designated Archives for Audiovisual Material shall:
(a) Collect, restore and preserve audiovisual materials of national or international importance, national or international audiovisual works, other material and audiovisual documentation of artistic, historic and documentary interest;
(b) Collect, restore and preserve equipment and technical premises for copying, consulting, viewing and displaying the different audiovisual formats, equipment and technical material of historic interest;
(c) Catalogue the audiovisual materials and related materials;
(d) Undertake scientific research in the field of audiovisual materials and audiovisual creation;
(e) Make the collection available for scientific, educational and cultural purposes;
(f) Make known information concerning the Archive by such means as publications and exhibitions;
(g) Establish and maintain a database on the audiovisual production of [the country] and issue on this basis a bibliographic record of the audiovisual production of [the country] in collaboration with the national bibliographic institution;
(h) In agreement with the [Minister of .. ] take part in international programmes of cooperation within the Archives' field of activities.
In all of the countries surveyed more than one institution holding audiovisual collections could be identified, without, however, their statutes as officially recognized archives always being clear. When searching for a legal framework, emphasis has to be laid on the difference between audiovisual archival institutions which operate within an official appointment and which are officially recognized, and all other types of audiovisual organizations.
The formulation in the Guidelines follows a twofold objective:
Firstly, it makes clear that the patrimonial task of audiovisual archives can only be guaranteed by a neutral and officially recognized administration.
Secondly, at the same time, it is open to decisions based on national needs and conditions, whether such an administration should consist in one centralized institution or in several premises.
A detailed enumeration of the objectives of audiovisual archives and of the conservation of the audiovisual heritage would have to be included in any regulatory framework relating to this subject, even if from a comparative analysis, it can be observed that such an enumeration of the purposes, objectives and responsibilities of different audiovisual archive institutions is included in texts of very different legal force and value in the countries surveyed.
The relevant enumeration in the Guidelines stresses that an audiovisual archive is not only a collection, but also a technical means for the long-term survival of the material in its possession. Audiovisual archives differ from the traditional written document archives in the first place by reason of the information carrier, that is, the external form, but not on account of the quality of the historical informative value. This means that the traditional archive functions (assessment, evaluation, access and projection) retain their importance.
When speaking about audiovisual archives in this paper they are understood to be centres to safeguard the audiovisual heritage of a nation and to render it - to a limited degree - accessible for research, education and other purposes to be defined.
They should be seen as neutral, officially recognized preservation institutions equal in cultural importance to national libraries, national museums and national archives and not as mere suppliers of services to TV or broadcast stations or to film production studios.
What can be said from a comparative view of national legislations is that in very few cases does a legislative act regulate financing, financial autonomy and management of the budget of audiovisual archives. The cultural and professional work is often hampered by financial difficulties, owing to the fact that budgets and certain types of expenditure are not authorized by existing legislation. This is why the Guidelines aim at stating a clear and comprehensive public responsibility to provide the audiovisual safeguarding institutions with adequate resources. This does in no way exclude other sources of financing the archive, inter alia, by own activities. However, in view of the patrimonial task of the relevant institutions, such "extraordinary revenues" should only form supplementary, not the main source of funds.
For an optimal functioning of the structure of the archival institutions and a reasonable coordination of human resources, it seems most useful to integrate questions on structure, management and staff in any relevant legislative act. This however, is true only for a few of the countries surveyed, in most of the others, they are included in bylaws or statutes. It seems most reasonable, as experience shows, to create a managing and supervising body consisting of a representative membership.
Membership of the Council
The Guidelines therefore propose that the archive's management should consist of a staff representative, as the staff should be able to participate in the decision-making process as well, and a governmental representative at the ministerial or higher civil servant level. It should also be open - not at least for the sake of co-operation and co- ordination - to other experts such as representatives of other safeguarding and patrimonial institutions. (National Libraries, National Archives.)
acquisition of audiovisual materials by the designated archives for audiovisual materials
Material subject to legal deposit
Legal deposit means the obligation, enforceable by law, to deposit with one or several authorized institutions copies of any material designated for public diffusion. In most countries, legal deposit exists with respect to written material published in the country. This enables national libraries to hold a complete collection of the national production of the printed word and to compile a national bibliography.
The only way to guarantee that audiovisual material is deposited with archives set up for that purpose would be a similar system of legal deposit. There are, however, essential differences, not the least being the cost of audiovisual records and the relative fragility of their material support.
In a number of countries, it might have been the UNESCO 1980 Recommendation that led to national initiatives for legal deposit of moving images. Not all such initiatives have been successful. However, legal deposit systems have been established in a number of countries. If a mandatory deposit system at least for parts of the audiovisual production is foreseen, it may be included in quite different bodies of law.
In some cases where deposit is foreseen, it is limited to registering the title of the film, a summary of the subject matter or the scenario etc.. In others, such deposit is included in the context of copyright protection. Some countries apply deposit to material produced by the state. Others foresee deposit for films produced with governmental subventions.
A legal obligation for (private) producers in the field of audiovisual records to deposit in a public archival establishment can only be realized in a few cases and is often reduced to cinematographic films; rarely are other audiovisual items included.
It should be stated in this context that an obligation to hand over material does not run counter to the interests of the producers, since the free storage of the primary materials of a privately produced item in a public archival establishment is objectively an advantage for all parties concerned, even if subjectively it is sometimes not perceived that way.
The first problem to be solved by legislation is to define which categories of audiovisual material should be included in deposit regulations. The Guidelines - contrary to many existing legislations which are restricted to certain material supports - try to cover the whole field of audiovisual materials.
As to the scope of regulation, some propose that only national productions or those co-produced with foreign producers should be deposited, meaning national production as that of producers whose place of residence or headquarters is in the country requiring legal deposit.
However, the deposit of the various versions or remakes of an audiovisual production as well as foreign productions relating to history of culture of the country could be of value.
The UNESCO 1980 Recommendation considers films dubbed or subtitled in the language of the country in which they are publicly distributed as an "integral part of the moving image heritage of the country concerned" - but nevertheless only proposes voluntary deposit for this kind of foreign production, mostly because it was considered detrimental to the interests of the film-makers who would fear that these films might be commercially exploited in another country without their being able to exercise control.
This argument, however, is not very convincing as international copyright instruments do provide for protection of foreign production from other signatory states as well as for that of their own nationals. The Guidelines do not restrict their scope of regulation to national production. This idea is not unfamiliar to a number of legislations.
A special status is accorded to radio and television broadcasts in case they are held in the archives of the organization which made them, provided that the official archives are not equipped to receive the whole of the television production.
It must not be seen as a contradiction to aim at establishing a wide-ranging legal deposit system and to propose certain categories of exceptions at the same time. The Guidelines intend to propose groups of exceptions necessary from the point of view of practicability and familiar to several existing legislations, leaving their concrete application to the conditions of each national situation.
Complementary information to the actual audiovisual record is most useful, not only for cataloguing purposes, but also for the archives to be able to constitute a minimum legal data list on the rights residing in the item. Such complementary information could consist in data on contractual agreements with author and co-authors of the work, on the form of publication, on the scope of distribution, on certain technical parameters etc..
It might be argued that it is necessary to permit several institutions to hold material because of the volume involved or because of subject specialization. The decision on the structure of the deposit institution will depend on several factors, not the least being financial considerations in maintaining and supporting such depositories. Under existing deposit rules for printed material there are in most cases more than one library entitled to receive copies of books. It should therefore not cause legal problems if there is more than one official archive, although there might be practical problems.
Be the material with one central agency or with different bodies, it will, however, be indispensable for the confidence of the depositor that the institutions are neutral, public and working on a non-profit-making basis and without any orientation on commercial exploitation of the material.
A solution would be to foresee that the material is deposited with one central agency established for this purpose which would either have to be provided with the adequate resources to ensure proper safeguarding of all audiovisual documents deposited, or have the responsibility to distribute the material to specialized archives. The Guidelines, while choosing this latter solution, are nevertheless easily applicable where several institutions exist. In those cases it is essential that their respective criteria be strictly defined and they adopt common technical and cataloguing criteria which would be guaranteed by the structure proposed in the Guidelines.
Whether ownership of the material is transferred to the archival institution will in general depend very much on the contractual arrangements, as long as countries do not choose to provide for explicit regulations in this field. Whereas only few national legislations do refer to this problem, the guidelines propose that ownership be transferred to the archives. This is very similar to the French solution.
A distinction must of course be made between the ownership of the rights and the ownership of the material itself which is deposited.
Whether selection of items subject to deposit should take place at all and if so, according to which criteria, is indeed a difficult and controversial problem. Only a few of the national legal texts surveyed give a clear statement on this problem. The Guidelines try to propose a practical approach to the question of whether selection shall take place at all and if so, which criteria should be binding for archives. It would be illogical to introduce a system of legal deposit and to foresee in the same law that a part of the material may be eliminated. But practical considerations such as space and costs have led archives to select materials to be preserved. There might in fact be border-line cases in which the destruction and selection of certain documents is envisaged without running counter to the general preservation principle. In general, no material should be denied and no selection should be made. For considerations of costs and space, some legislations might provide for exceptions to this general principle and foresee some form of selection process until new techniques permit the preservation of all material having been deposited.
Access by the depositor
Contracts between producers and distributors often foresee the destruction of the material after the period of contractual exploitation. This destruction for purely commercial reasons should not interfere with legal deposit. In terms of withdrawal of deposited material the fact that some single copies remain with a designated archive, should not be an obstacle to new sources of income by re-use in new productions. For that very reason, regulations for some form of controlled access by the depositor to the material seem necessary.
If the major task of legal deposit is the safeguarding of the cultural heritage in audiovisual form, it seems reasonable to limit cases in which the re-use of the material once deposited is possible.
If there is, as is proposed, an obligation for the archive to deliver the material at the demand of the copyright owner - usually when the material is considered to be marketable again - the archive which has performed a service to the producers should also legally enjoy a share of these profits by being refunded at least a part of the preservation costs.
Once legal deposit is introduced, legislation has to define the person responsible for the deposit. Different solutions are chosen in national legislations. Some countries designate the producer as the person responsible. In other cases, both the producer and the distributor bear the responsibility. Some legislations mention the editor/manufacturer as the person responsible for the deposit. Other laws also include reproduction laboratories in the responsibility. Considering the fact that a very wide range of material is covered by the deposit obligation, the Guidelines propose several alternatives for the obligation to be shared.
In view of the risk of sanctions in the case of non-deposit, the depositor is to be given proof that he has actually effected his obligation.
As to the time when the deposit obligation matures, one fundamental difference could be observed between those systems where deposit only relates to public audiovisual records, and those where it applies to private productions. In the first case the time is usually longer. In our case, as public records are not covered, it seems most reasonable to demand deposit immediately after publication and/or distribution. It should be stressed in this context that the obligation should in any case mature consequent and not prior to publication and/or distribution in order not to bring up any doubt on the possible misuse of the deposit system for prior censorship.
To institute legal deposit is one thing, having adequate means to execute it is a different matter. It should be possible to impose penalties if a depositor regularly fails to deposit. Some legislators have, in fact, explicitly included sanctions for non-deposit, such as seizure and confiscation of copies (e.g. Algeria, Italy, Madagascar), fixed fines expressed in a multiple of the costs of an item (e.g. Barbados, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, USA). This latter approach is chosen in the Guidelines. In order to keep the consequently necessary administrative infrastructure at a reasonably low level, the competent authority is only obliged to act upon the archives' request, and a separate appeal is not possible.
Usually, the introduction of a legal deposit system means per se that the costs are to be borne by the depositor, contrary to other forms of acquisitions. One of the traditional reasons for the introduction of legal deposit for printed material was, and still is, to enrich library collections without expense for the State. Nevertheless, opinions on this problem vary. There are those who believe that the costs should be met by the producer who could include this expense in his production budget. Others consider that in view of the high costs of copies, the State should meet the costs involved or, alternatively, the archive funded by the State. Some lawyers argue that legal deposit without indemnification for the depositor would appear as a discriminatory form of taxation or confiscation of private goods. But, even if lawyers' opinions are not unanimous on this subject, a limited legal deposit at the depositor's expense seems generally accepted.
Other forms of acquisition
Taking into consideration the special status of broadcast material, it seems reasonable to authorize the designated archives - as is already foreseen in the Copyright Acts of the United Kingdom and the USA - to record off air programmes for archival purposes.
Apart from the legal deposit system - even if wide-ranging - the archives should be given the possibility to acquire other forms of valuable material that might not be covered by the deposit rules. This is why the Guidelines specify purchase, exchange and donations as well.
Well before the UNESCO 1980 recommendation which declares moving images as a part of the cultural heritage, audiovisual materials themselves, and also archives have been defined as a part of the cultural property which itself forms part of the cultural heritage. Audiovisual items are, generally speaking, fragile materials, which need special treatment for long-term preservation. Legislations, however, rarely consider this aspect. As to the copyright conventions, the only binding international regulation directly relating to the preservation of audiovisual materials concerns ephemeral recordings: art. 11 bis of the Berne Convention provides that national legislation may authorize broadcasting organizations to make ephemeral recordings by the means of their own facilities and for their own broadcast without the consent of the author, and to preserve these recordings in official archives on "the ground of their exceptional documentary character". This rule has been incorporated in most national copyright laws. However, rarely do national laws go further in developing regulations referring to different aspects of preservation.
Reproduction for preservation purposes
It is most important to note that a more general right to make copies for preservation purposes does not figure as an exception in the Copyright Conventions nor in most national legislations on the subject. The Guidelines, therefore, foresee the right of duplication of recordings for purposes of preservation or security, or for the replacement of damaged, deteriorated or stolen ones which do not prejudice the interests of the copyright owner.
Technical standards/measures against willful destruction
The UNESCO 1980 Recommendation states in paragraph 12 that it is the responsibility of the states concerned, under the provisions of their national legislations to define measures to prevent the disappearance, particularly through destruction, of moving images, and the same is desirable for other categories of audiovisual material. The Guidelines consider two different aspects of destruction: unwanted destruction which they try to combat by proposing the development of technical standards, and willful destruction. Both categories of regulations are rather uncommon in existing laws.
Safeguarding of works in the public domain
As soon as they cease to be protected by copyright, literary, scientific and artistic works fall into the public domain. A minimum duration of protection is fixed in the Copyright Conventions and in most national laws. From this time onwards the use of these works is in principle free and unremunerated. This is a most important point for audiovisual archives, as from that moment on, no permission is needed for reproduction and use. At the same time, the status of works in the public domain is characterized by a legal vacuum. In the safeguarding of such works, archives may have an important task. One should think of referring to these matters in national audiovisual archive legislations as well as in legal action to maintain the respect for works in the public domain. This may be a very original concept for archivists and jurists to consider.
reproduction and access
Generally speaking copyright provides that anybody producing a literary or artistic work and holding the copyright has the exclusive right to decide whether it shall be made available to the public; it gives the copyright owner a certain control of the use of the work after its publication. In addition, many copyright laws confer rights based on individual, idealistic interests termed moral rights. There is no doubt that those rights have to be respected. Yet it should not be seen as a contradiction to the principle of the protection of intellectual creation to cede certain privileges in this context to the designated audiovisual safeguarding institutions.
Privileges for reproduction
Generally the exclusive right of reproduction is in principle with the copyright owner and includes reproduction of the original and all forms of subsequent copies as well as the transfer from one medium to another and the transfer in various language versions. Article 9 of the Berne Convention specifies that authors of literary and artistic works are to have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of their works in any manner or form. Article of the Universal Copyright Convention allows more freedom for the free use of protected materials. Rules for archives are required, first of all to cover situations where the copyright owner is not known (and therefore no contract possible), but also to give the archivist certain rights towards the copyright owner, even if they are known. The Guidelines define those purposes for which the right to make copies should be foreseen for audiovisual archives. Archives frequently need to make single copies of works for security reasons before using it. From an archival point of view it is necessary to hold all materials in two copies, one for strict preservation purposes and one for access. This means, if there is only one copy deposited, that the archive needs to make further copies, more so, if the access copy should deteriorate in quality. Therefore, an archive cannot function properly without the right to at least limited reproduction.
Exceptions for archives in this context are covered by the reproduction rule in the Berne Convention which states that it shall be "... a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author."
Access to the archival recordings
Audiovisual archives need the opportunity to bring their documentary sources to life by encouraging their use for different purposes, such as research, education and the promotion of culture. Access derives its raison d'etre from the concept of cultural property. Legislators have in many cases failed to establish a body of clear, precise and universally applicable regulations with a solid and coherent basis as to the question of right of access to audiovisual archival collections.
Limitations to access
Whereas the principle of access to source material needs explicit mentioning, the Guidelines recognize the fact that this is done against the background of conflicting rights and interests. The first group of such conflicts concerns long-term preservation needs. While access to the material is important, the audiovisual archive cannot be compared with a public library. It must have rules for limiting the access to the material in its possession for the sake of preservation.
Apart from these kinds of objections, obstacles to access to archival material can also have their origin in governmental considerations (national security, "ordre public") or considerations related to the protection of privacy. Taking these kinds of considerations seriously, the Guidelines propose an abstract exception to the general access principle.
Exhibition of archival recordings
The Guidelines set out the limits relating to the use and exhibition of the material so that it does not conflict with the rightful commercial exploitation by the copyright proprietor.
Loan and exchange of archival recordings
Under the same conditions, the Guidelines also propose to authorize the designated archives to loan single items outside their premises to institutions of a strictly non-commercial character. Apart from research, educational and cultural institutions they also include diplomatic missions in order to permit them to make the country's cultural heritage known abroad.
The Guidelines also propose to facilitate the exchange of deposited material, at least between official archives, without infringing international conventions if it is for certain fair use purposes and if the receiving institutions are not allowed to make further copies. Ideally, such an exchange could be arranged through an interarchival loan system. Exchange might also be necessary for practical reasons to avoid the restoration of copies in one country when it is believed that these are the only ones whereas better ones exist in another country.
Supplying archival recordings for quotation purposes
Most forms of copyrighted material are subject to a right of quotation which means that they may be used in the form of short extracts in education or in scholarly works, criticism, news items, etc. where their use is strictly subordinate to the main material. In the case of audiovisual material, quoting would therefore mean the use of a part of the material either in another audiovisual production or for the purpose of criticism or education under condition that the quoted part stays unchanged, is subordinate to the main material and the source is mentioned. But most national legislations as well as international copyright instruments remain silent on the kinds of works that may be quoted in other works. Based on a careful analysis of existing regulations, the Guidelines try to extend this general rule to different kinds of audiovisual material.
The idea of "non-commercial activities" characterizing the foregoing provisions of the Guidelines causes of course the problem of fees as users' contribution to the maintenance to remain "non-commercial" and to avoid the accusation of unfair competition. The Guidelines propose that it should be possible for an archive to charge appropriate costs for services without violating the non-commercial character.
importation and exportation of archival material
In the context of the transborder flow of audiovisual materials, several different aspects have to be considered. A problem frequently noted is the difficulty of sending audiovisual material across national borders. Many countries impose custom duties or import taxes on these materials even if they often have little commercial value. Taking into consideration the repeatedly expressed wish to treat films, sound recordings and other audiovisual materials as cultural materials in the sense of the diverse "free flow agreements", a number of countries have in fact exempted certain categories of such works from importation and/or exportation duties.
Most countries restrict in one way or another the free flow of information, cultural or other material relating to national security or national public order. This paragraph of the Guidelines is proposed in square brackets, leaving it up to the countries to decide if they consider necessary a similar restriction in relation to the foregoing paragraph.
The question arises concerning the organization of transborder movements in order to discourage unwanted exportation of the national audiovisual heritage. Helping to simplify administrative and restrictive formalities and custom regulations relating to the willful and lawful movement of cultural property may sometimes conflict with the intention to provide, at the same time, measures against the illicit transfer of cultural property of which audiovisual materials are part. The Guidelines intend to propose a reasonable compromise in this conflict.
Many countries do not yet possess the necessary technology to enable them to record aspects of their history and culture, and for this reason most such recordings are held abroad. This is particularly true of the period prior to 1980 though is much less so now. Others have lost recordings of great relevance due to accidents or armed conflicts. States should therefore be encouraged to facilitate the acquisition by the official archives of other States of copies of audiovisual documents which relate to their history and culture, irrespective of the author, the period or the reason for which they were made.
Considering trends in regulating transborder data flow by strict legislative measures, problems might also arise as to the exchange of computerized cataloguing data between archival institutions in different countries. This field also opens a new dimension for jurisprudence and might be considered when formulating national legislations, even though not yet spelt out in the Guidelines.
Related materials, such as scenarios, photos, posters, contemporary critiques, publicity materials, etc. often constitute important historical background to the actual audiovisual material. It is important to have access to the complete record, especially for research purposes. Some legislations therefore stipulate an obligation to deposit related material with the actual audiovisual material it concerns, as is proposed in the Guidelines.
In national legislations, the handling of related items is characterized by an even greater legal vacuum than that covering audiovisual records themselves. Regulations for the right to reproduce and distribute these materials will depend very much on the kinds of support used. Newspaper articles will have to be treated differently from posters, for example. Not only the copyright owner, but also the period of copyright protection might differ for these materials, in contrast to the audiovisual material itself. This is why it seems most reasonable - in order to simplify their handling by archives to integrate them in audiovisual archives regulations and to assimilate them to the actual audiovisual records.
Contents - Previous - Next