David, I apologize for making the inference that you had taken them from the PCA website. I have no proof of that at all and the text as written could have been better. For the record, I am not accusing you of taking the items from the PCA website.
I do wonder however why your notice on your website, and some of your comments here, seem to concentrate themselves with why it's ok to take things from the members-only area of the PCA website and make them available to non-PCA members. I would have expected the links for the items that John Jenkins says is from the PCA to be taken down, just as a show of solidarity to the PCA.
Any of the statements I have made in this matter are strictly defensive, in response to heated accusation here. As the basis for accusation was the feeling that the PCA has ownership of these files, I felt it necessary to address that misunderstanding directly.
Additionally, it should be noted that no one has ever provided me with specifics as to which files may be from the PCA library. Just general comments. Also, no one at the PCA has approached me in any way other than informally and belligerently, through this one forum.
I have never faced a demand for censorship before, formal or informal, and so will have to think quite a bit about how to proceed. The irony of such a demand coming from this quarter, of all places, is actually the height of irony. (No, near the height. The height would have been if it had come from Isaacson. For whom I must admit a present fondness.)
One thing that I have discovered in researching this issue is that many, many institutions are facing soul-searching questions about digitization. In fact, there is an entire chapter in Hirtle about the risks involved in digitizing collections, and the fact that institutions must do so only after great and careful consideration. Not the least of which issues being the possible loss of their status as gatekeepers to these formerly lucrative assets.
There is a very interesting 1999 response to the Bridgeman case (the one establishing that an exact digitized copy is still in the public domain), given publicly by a quite dismayed Barry G. Szczesny, counsel for the American Association of Museums. In it he bluntly states:
To have museums who argue vigorously (and rightly) on the one hand for "fair use" and on the other to assert perpetual copyright (by taking photos over and over again) over works which have fallen into the public domain would be seen by some as a bit of a double standard and would be all the more troubling coming from institutions with educational missions who hold their collections in the public trust[...]
[...]an additional Bridgeman problem[...]is the potential for a museum to run afoul of the criminal provisions of Section 506 of the Copyright Act for the fraudulent use of a copyright notice. However, it was generally agreed that museums would be safe with notices placed on public domain works prior to Bridgeman, because to run afoul of the criminal provisions you need to have fraudulent intent.
This is a very qualified specialist's opinion that, if push comes to shove, an institution that claims the right of control over public domain documents--regardless of format or 'sweat of the brow' investment--is arguably the one behaving both illegally and unethically.
My own opinion, not being an expert, is not yet fully formed. But tonight I am curling up with a copy of Copyfraud. I figure a law professor with degrees from Harvard, Stanford & Yale, and years of intellectual property law practice, can help clear any muddy waters.