[clarification needed]

Wikipedia's Definition of Copyright
Courtesy of Wikipedia

I want you to imagine a world in which George Lucas lost control of Star Wars in 2005.  The original film, re-dubbed "A New Hope" for its VHS release, is released into the public domain.  Anyone can remake, re-edit, re-write and re-interpret the film.  The story is ripped from the aging, corporate culture of Lucasfilm Limited™ and given to the masses.  By 2011, the entire original trilogy is released to the public domain.  The possibilities are nearly endless.  George Lucas' dreary "prequel" trilogy is just one in a sea of interpretations, having to compete in the free market of ideas.    

That was the world envisioned by the founders, who in the 1790 Copyright Act, laid out a relatively relaxed copyright regime, in which a person's work was under protection for 14 years, with a possible extension of another 14 years if renewed.  Since then, the amount of time a copyright lasts has ballooned to the life of the author plus 75 years, effectively denying us access to nearly everything created in the middle to late 20th century.  

The creative commons is an attempt to re-balance the scales in the other direction, with content creators freely waving some of their rights to definitive, ultra-long lasting copyright protection, in favor of a sharing regime.  While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it is at least an attempt to come to terms with the increasingly draconian laws being passed on this issue.

When it comes to the history space on the web, Cohen and Rosenzweig lay out the basic ideas of copyright protection with the idea of protecting yourself from liability.  Historians, by the nature of their craft, are going to use materials and objects under some form of copyright protection.  Protecting yourself from charges of idea-theft and plagiarism are long traditions for historians already.  What is new is the way that the latest forms of digital media and historical presentation fit into all this.  Cohen and Rosenzweig give out basic information about copyright, mostly urging historians to be cautious and double check your rights with regards to source materials before use.  

Mark Helprin, conservative commentator and author has a different take on the subject, and writes in the New York Times that copyrights should be forever.  His argument, which was followed by a lengthy rebuttal by Lawrence Lessig, boils down to the idea that content creators should exist in the same space as major corporations and be able to benefit from their creations in perpetuity.  He makes the claim that not only the children, but the great great great great great great great great grandchildren of the authors should have every right to the material profits as the original creator.  In this he makes a stupefying analogy to slavery and other similarly overwrought comparisons.  The torrent of negative reaction to the piece (750,000 angry comments) spawned a seemingly hurt but still defiant Helprin to pen Digital Barbarism: A Writers Manifesto , in which he intends to speak for all content creators who demand that works be placed in perpetual lock-down.

The dizzying maze of copyright rules and regulations governing so-called "orphan works" (in which the copyright holder cannot be found) have prevented a huge treasure of unreleased Jazz recordings from seeing the light of day.  This sort of issue can underscore the need for clarity and reform in the copyright arena.  Digital historians, far from being sued, are far more likely to refuse to post content over the fear of litigation.  Not being lawyers, they rightly do not wish to enter the confused and somewhat backward world of copyrights, where an iPod filled with pirated music can be worth eight billion dollars and where unlawfully using a Michael Jackson song could possibly get you more prison time than killing him.  

Still, I think digital historians should calm down and look at all the great alternatives available for their use.  Historians are low on the copyright regime's radar, and are very unlikely to suffer legally from it, unless they do some clearly inappropriate things.  Take me for instance.  Remember the Star Wars idea I posited in the beginning of this post?  I stole it from this wonderful C.G.P. Grey Youtube video:

Hopefully this belated citation will keep the angry copyright gods at bay...