Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ray
Saintonge<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
[snip]
If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen
as a strategic mistake,
it can't be unpublished. There are arguments available for it being a
strategic positive.
One argument for it being a mistake is that the early disclosure has
diminished his supporters ability to shape the public debate.
Yes and no. Shaping public debate implies a certain degree of control
over this shape. That does have a dark side if there is no prior
understanding about where that public debate should be going. Wide
publicity may help fundraising for legal costs if things ever get that far.
There are some relevant pieces of information that
would influence
people's opinions, things like that the NPG previously complaining
about low resolution photographs and photographs taken by the
uploaders. (I haven't gone and tried to find examples from the latter
from the NPG, but UK museums have routinely tried to assert copyright
over photographs taken by commons contributors).
If they were previously complaining about low res photos, but are now
offering them as some kind of offer in compromise, there is room there
for positive movement. Others might see this as a sign of weakness in
their position. It's up to WMF to accept or not. The question then
becomes whether there is more to be gained from a satisfactory median
resolution, or an all out victory that opens up the possibility of a loss.
The real interesting story here is that museums all
over the over the
world believe that holding the physical good gives them unlimited
rights to regulate all uses of copies and even rights to regulate
discussions of those works, and that they are now beginning to partner
with commercial service providers seeking to monetize that control and
becoming litigious as a result. In the end the public's access to the
works shrinks, the public domain is eroded, and the lie is put to the
lofty claims of education, promotion, and preservation included in the
grant requests and mission statements of museums.
Agreed, and it goes beyond just
museums. Film makers, record producers,
newspapers ... all are finding the economic models that sustained them
before the internet age are collapsing. Kuhn said that a paradigm shift
would have victims. If NPG wins it case that situation won't be changed
by such a blip. We can probably agree that museums and other cultural
institutions are valuable assets to a society, and we can probably agree
that there are costs connected with maintaining those assets. It's also
evident that the informational value of each artifact is unique, and the
artifact is not multiplied to accommodate growing demand. Accepting low
resolution images may be a stepping stone to greater co-operation in the
future. Beyond that it becomes a need for cultural institutions to
recognize that they need the volunteer sector or risk pricing themselves
out of the market trying to meet the increasingly sophisticated demands
of the online communities. They will still need funding, but that
funding is not without limits. The funders live in a real world where
there are many other funding demands.
Ec