In a message dated 1/16/2009 4:27:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
carcharothwp@googlemail.com writes:
The usual solution to that is to point to the museum/library/archive image as a way to verify the self-created image (similar to how people point to Google Books now to verify books they are using as references). But what if there is no museum/library/archive image?>>
"Point to" versus "take". Two separate things. I'm not disputing the right to link to an image on bible.org. I'm disputing the right to take that image and post it to flicker.com
And "what if there is no museum image" only means that we are in the same position as "what if we have no free image of Britney Spears eating a hot dog for our hot dog page??". I.E. we're not worse off than we've been for five thousand years.
The mere fact that an image now exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do whatever we want with it. And the mere fact that no image exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do whatever it takes to get one. We still are ethically bound to follow standard protocol, and not rock the image boat.
If we adhere to the idea that any scan of a PD item is a voluntary act to freely distribute such scan to the world for any purpose than the end result is that the massive scanners will simply stop scanning and we won't have anything free, limited, for pay, or what.
Shooting yourself in the foot to prove that you can isn't a useful tactic.
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... cemailfooterNO62)
2009/1/16 WJhonson@aol.com:
"Point to" versus "take". Two separate things. I'm not disputing the right to link to an image on bible.org. I'm disputing the right to take that image and post it to flicker.com
And "what if there is no museum image" only means that we are in the same position as "what if we have no free image of Britney Spears eating a hot dog for our hot dog page??". I.E. we're not worse off than we've been for five thousand years.
The mere fact that an image now exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do whatever we want with it.
Under common law we have the right to do anything that is not illegal.
And the mere fact that no image exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do whatever it takes to get one.
We have the right to anything legal to get one.
We still are ethically bound to follow standard protocol, and not rock the image boat.
Not under any of the commonly held systems of ethics within liberal democracies.
If we adhere to the idea that any scan of a PD item is a voluntary act to freely distribute such scan to the world for any purpose than the end result is that the massive scanners will simply stop scanning and we won't have anything free, limited, for pay, or what.
We will deal with that if it happens. For various reasons I strongly suspect it won't.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:20 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/2009 4:27:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
carcharothwp@googlemail.com writes:
The usual solution to that is to point to the museum/library/archive image as a way to verify the self-created image (similar to how people point to Google Books now to verify books they are using as references). But what if there is no museum/library/archive image?>>
"Point to" versus "take". Two separate things.
I agree.
I'm not disputing the right to link to an image on bible.org. I'm disputing the right to take that image and post it to flicker.com
Ditto.
But you do realise the reason why there is such a thing as "public domain" in the first place, right? It's a balance between encouraging free access to public domain material, and discouraging restriction of access to public domain material.
And "what if there is no museum image" only means that we are in the same position as "what if we have no free image of Britney Spears eating a hot dog for our hot dog page??". I.E. we're not worse off than we've been for five thousand years.
I preferred the bible example.
The mere fact that an image now exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do whatever we want with it.
I agree. But you avoided my other question:
If the *object* is public domain, who has the right to access it?
If you buy an expensive first edition public domain book (hundreds of years old and thousands of US dollars), what do you say to someone who turns up on your doorstep saying that the book is part of the collective heritage of humankind, and that they have a right to look at it and scan it, and that you have no right to keep the item locked up in a display cabinet for only you to look at?
This is private collections, not museums, but what distinctions should be drawn? There *are* some private collections of very old material that are not under government control and are not about to be released to the public anytime soon. Is this a problem? What can be done about it?
You talked about capitalism. That creates markets in old stuff. Which leads to hoarding.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
If we adhere to the idea that any scan of a PD item is a voluntary act to freely distribute such scan to the world for any purpose than the end result is that the massive scanners will simply stop scanning and we won't have anything free, limited, for pay, or what.
I think you've failed to demonstrate that our taking a copy of things we're legally allowed to take a copy of is actually harming any of these organizations, quite apart from any argument about whether we should actually care.
-Matt