NYPL Digital Gallery Open to Public 158
mountiealpha writes "The New York Public Library has digitized over 275,000 images from their colletions, and made them freely available available online. The 'NYPL Digital Gallery provides access to over 275,000 images digitized from primary sources and printed rarities in the collections of The New York Public Library, including illuminated manuscripts, historical maps, vintage posters, rare prints and photographs, illustrated books, printed ephemera, and more.'" Update: 03/04 17:30 GMT by Z : They're updating the site to handle high traffic volumes, but there is an informational page available with details on the site.
It's down (Score:2, Funny)
Did anyone get a chance to mirror that puppy before it was slashdotted into oblivion?
Re:It's down (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's down (Score:2)
A very professional 404. Much better than the standard one which causes noobs to question if "the internet is down"
Re:It's down They should use coral (Score:2, Interesting)
For once it wasn't our fault (Score:2)
Homer Quote... (Score:2)
"Due to the overwhelming interest in the new Digital Gallery we are currently experiencing extremely high traffic. In order to address this demand we are temporarily taking the site down to increase capacity. We are working to bring the site back up as soon as possible and appreciate your patience. Please check back soon. (For information on the Digital Gallery, please visit http://www.nypl.org/press/digitalgallery.cfm)"
What License? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What License? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What License? (Score:2)
I personally think its disgusting when people place additional restrictions on public domain material. That a library supported by public money does that is hard to comprehend.
Re:What License? (Score:2)
However, you cannot put restrictions on public domain material. The material is owned by the Public. As a member of the Public, you too own it; therefore, you can do whatever you want with it, including use it for commercial activities. Scanning in something doesn't give them rights to it any more than scanning a commercial, copyrighted book gives *you* rights to it.
Having said that, not all of the material may be in the public domain. Some of the material may be owned by them (as
Re:What License? (Score:2)
They basically admit that the material is in the public domain, but that seeing as they own the material, they don't have to give you a look at it. I guess that's true. If you own a copy of a book in the public domain, you can reproduce it all you want. But it doesn't give you the right to break into your neighbor's house to get a copy of a book *he* owns that is in the public domain!
So, they're not chargi
Re:What License? (Score:1)
I dare say they just provide them public domain if they are over 50 years old. Then we can see who the heartless smucks would sue them.
Re:What License? (Score:2)
The library has nothing to do with whether the pictures are in the public domain or not.
A work being in the public domain doesn't mean that no one will charge you for access to it. It (more-or-less) means that ANYONE can charge for access to it. (See if your local bookstore is giving away free copies of _A Tale of Two Cities_.)
If you think that you can provide the service more cheaply try it. You may
Re:What License? (Score:1)
Re:What License? (Score:4, Informative)
I've recently dealt with getting digital copies of 1870's historical photographs from various sources including libraries, city archives, historical societies, private collectors, etc. Even though the images are very old, way beyond even a Disney copyright, but in each case each archive owns their copy of the image so you can only use a copy of their copy under their terms and conditions.
Re:What License? (Score:2)
It is possible, but not very likely.
Copyright protection extends to CREATIVE works only. An exact reproduction of an image is not protected by the copyright because no creativity is employed.
in each case each archive owns their copy of the image so you can only use a copy of their copy under their terms and conditions
Umm... two comments. First, the archive "owns" their copy of the image in the meaning that they are free to give it to you
Re:What License? (Score:2)
Re:What License? (Score:2)
Nope; copies of images in the public domain have no new copyright, so barring other factors, you don't need their permission.
in each case each archive owns their copy of the image so you can only use a copy of their copy under their terms and conditions.
They own the physical copy; they have no rights over copies of that copy, unl
Re:What License? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What License? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What License? (Score:2)
Re:What License? (Score:2)
I think its disgusting when people put additional restrictions on public domain material, especially when its a publicly funded library.
Library piracy? (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright Issues for Libraries When Digitizing Materials for the Web
When digitizing documents or other objects to be made available on the World Wide Web, a library first needs to determine whether the item is protected by copyright or whether it is in the public domain. If the material is protected by copyright, the library will need to obtain permission from the copyright owner before making the digitized copy available through the World Wide Web. If the item is in the public domain, the library does not need permission to digitize it and make it available.
more here:
http://www.mlcnet.org/services/copydigitiz
Re:Library piracy? (Score:3, Informative)
For instance, Georgia Tech's library is federally funded, but they do not allow everyone to access the digital copies of things such as journals and the like - only students, researchers & faculty.
This, despite the fact that the material can only be accessed from within the campus (or from outside if you have a GTech id, but then if you do have one you're par
Re:Library piracy? (Score:2)
It's sometimes a pleasant break from being in the office, and the nearest university is only 20 minutes from here.
Re:Library piracy? (Score:2)
Actually, when I was at a certain famous national lab, you'd be automatically granted access to most journals the moment you even visit certain websites.
For example, you visit Phy. Rev. or Annalen der Physik and you'd notice that you do not even need to login, the website grants you complete access automatically. Which is kinda cool if you ask me =)
Re:Library piracy? (Score:2)
Here at IU to access them from off campus you have to use vpn to get into the databases
Re:Library piracy? (Score:2)
The journals are usually paid for - and granting free access to them online would mean that they are distributing those journals - which the journals may not appreciate.
Teeny Tiny pics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Teeny Tiny pics (Score:1)
Re:Library piracy? (Score:2)
Until they extend it again, anyway.
In other words, it would be covered by that last sentence: "the library does not need permission to digitize it".
Why the fee for hi-res (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this fair? I don't get why publically-funded institutions can charge for their services like this. It's like how NPR charges you for transcripts, but dumps them into Google News for searching. Quite annoying.
Libraries should be free.
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:2)
It's already common practice for libraries to charge for renting DVDs, ordering books etc. so I wouldn't say it comes as a surprise that they charge for these pictures in high-res.
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:2, Funny)
There are a number of free spell checkers out there that are free as in beer
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:2)
You're goddamn right we do!
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:2)
AC wrote:
"High-resolution images are available for licensing for personal use and for professional reproduction through Photographic Services & Permissions."
Silver Sloth replied:
Libraries are free - as in speach. You want free as in beer.
Wrong. These images are not "free as in speach" [sic]. By the act of electronically duplicating images already in the public domain, the New York Public Library has re-established copyright on those images.
While the Silver Sloth raises an important
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:2)
No, you can't get a copyright for a mere scan, because making a scan is not a creative act. I believe they hope to use contract law somehow: by downloading a copy from their site, you implicitly agree to a contract saying that in return for the image you promise not to distribute it any further and not to use it for commerci
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know whether NYPL is 100% public or not, but it looks like they did get outside help in the form of grants for this project.
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:1)
Even with a fee, I'm glad the NYPL is doing this and hope that other libraries follow suit.
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:2)
You want everything free, even if it means the library can no longer cover expenses or raise some much needed cash through sale or rental of the images.
Then you wonder why the collection has disappeared from the net or been licensed to Corbis, under terms that quarantee no one will be making a gift of high-res scans to a Wiki.
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of like paying to pay to get into a tax-subsidized stadium to see a sports event.
Kind of like paying tuition at public universities.
Kind of like paying for a stamp when the USPS was a part of the government.
Kind of like getting a tax assesment to fund the local library.
Kind of like paying a sewer bill.
Kind of like paying to use a public golf course.
Kind of like paying to get into a national or state park.
Kind of like paying your dues to the Lions, and donating extra for a certain project.
Kind of like paying the parking meter at the national mall.
Kind or like paying a toll on a public turnpike/bridge/tunnel.
Quote: "Is this fair?"
Response quote: "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
These things may or not be fair, but public libraries charging for non-basic services shouldn't be a big surprise.
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:1)
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention the fact that they would need money for the infrastructure, systems and running costs. Now where would they get the money for something like that from?
Most libraries have just about enough money to keep the basic stuff running, let alone spend on something like this. So, unless they receive a fat grant for doing stuff like this, there isn't really much that they can do except charge for it.
Now, fair use would grant you permission to see the low-res versions, but they have every right to charge you for the high-res particularly since they invested money in bringing it to you in the first place.
While it may be unfortunate, I can see where they are coming from. Kinda inevitable, but on the bright side you atleast have something!
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why the fee for hi-res (Score:2)
Copyright (Score:2)
Is the reason that they can offer these images for download that painters and other picture artists don't have a extremist organization like RIAA or MPAA?
Re:Copyright (Score:1)
Re:Copyright (Score:1)
No-one 'private collector' is going to decide not to pay a million dollar sum for a Monet original because they can look at it online.
Whereas music and movies are business, with labels trying to squeeze every drop of c
Re:Copyright (Score:2, Interesting)
Having said that, some of the work may still be covered by copyright; however, if the copyright holder has given permission for their works to be reproduced, this would not be a problem. That's a possibility as wel
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
No. Copies of public domain images remain free (Score:2)
No. Can't re-copyright a copy of a public domain image. See Bridgeman vs. Corel. [cornell.edu] "In this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create "slavish copies" of public domain works of art. While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality -- indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fi
Re:No. Copies of public domain images remain free (Score:2)
Re:No. Copies of public domain images remain free (Score:2)
The Bridgeman decision is based on the famous Feist vs. Rural Telephone [findlaw.com] case. This Supreme Court decision that phone directories are not original enough to be copyrighted created the third-party phone book industry. When the Internet came along, the Feist decision permitted a whole range of directory-type services. As the Court put it, "The originality requirement is constitutionally mandated for all works.", and "No
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
Thanks New York Public Library! (Score:4, Funny)
As a re-opening present for this nice gesture, we will... slashdot you!
Re:Thanks New York Public Library! (Score:2, Funny)
Thanks New York Public Library for putting these 275,000 pictures online!
ahhh, ok, they're online. The speed of the site had me thinking they were scanning on demand.
Slashdotted within the first 2 posts? (Score:1)
So they went to all the trouble of scanning 275,000 works while expecting low traffic volumes?
Re:Slashdotted within the first 2 posts? (Score:1)
Re:Slashdotted within the first 2 posts? (Score:1)
Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Double Up On Servers (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe maybe they should charge a little soemthing.
So that they can buy buy a new server.
I'd love to see some of these. (Score:2)
Re:I'd love to see some of these. (Score:1)
I See Something (Score:1, Funny)
I really like the one print that they managed to place below the no bandwidth message.
You know...the Stormtrooper in a Snowstorm!
shouldn't there be (Score:2, Funny)
I would think... (Score:2)
*.cfm = Compleat Fucking Mess when slashdotted (Score:3, Insightful)
I once worked on a *.cfm project where everything had to go through like 5 layers of abstraction before anything happened... and they claimed it was all in the name of uh, efficiency(!) (maybe billing the client efficiency)
"Due to the overwhelming interest in the new Digital Gallery we are currently experiencing extremely high traffic. In order to address this demand we are temporarily taking the site down to increase capacity. We are working to bring the site back up as soon as possible and appreciate your patience. Please check back soon. (For information on the Digital Gallery, please visit http://www.nypl.org/press/digitalgallery.cfm)"
Re:*.cfm = Compleat Fucking Mess when slashdotted (Score:2)
Writing (Score:1)
Perhaps it's too early in the morning to be double checking orthography?
The real question is... (Score:1)
They have had some photos online for years (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/h
Not slashdotted at the moment.
Re:They have had some photos online for years (Score:2, Funny)
Safety? (Score:1)
Like my favorites, the Lewis Hine photos of the Depression-Era construction of the Empire State Building. Anybody who says photography is not art should view them. http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hi nex/empire/empire.html/ [nypl.org]
Let's play a game.
How many hardhats can you spot?
Re:Safety? (Score:2)
Re:They have had some photos online for years (Score:2)
http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/h
Re:They have had some photos online for years (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_05.07.98/art/h
Torrent (Score:3, Insightful)
Over HOW many pictures are available again? (Score:1)
Carrie Bickner (Score:1)
Copyright-like claims on public domain? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, quoting from http://www.nypl.org/permissions/newpermissions.ht
Umm... where did this right to grant or deny publication rights appear from? If I get a public-domain image, from NYPL or anyone else, I should have the right to publish it as I see fit -- it's in public domain, isn't it? Is NYPL trying to get itself copyright-like rights through contracts (presumably you agree to some contract when you order the image)?
Moreover, there is a use fee schedule (http://www.nypl.org/permissions/UseFeeSchedule8_
Why I should pay a different sum of money to NYPL if I want to distribute 100 copies or 100,000 copies of a public-domain image?
Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain? (Score:2)
If you honestly think that the document techs at the NYPL are going to let you get within fifty feet of a 17th century illuminated manuscript, laptop or no, you're out of your mind. It's not like they just pull them off the stacks and hand 'em over. Most books, yes, but not those. There's a pressurized vault underneath the HumLit building on 42nd and fifth that houses most of these volumes and it's only open
Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain? (Score:2)
Copyright-free Source vs. Copyrighted Image (Score:2)
Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
According to Wikipedia (they need to use a lot of pictures), exact photographic copies of two dimensional public domain images can't be protected by copyright in the US because they lack originality. So it would seem that: No, they can't place such a restriction these works.
This has a precedent in Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corporation [wikipedia.org].
Now what I'd really like to know is how does this compare to other countries.
Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain? (Score:2)
After having been Slashdotted, I'm sure he realized it was unenforcable.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The best part of NYPL... (Score:2)
Their online catalogue? Library Entrance Online. LEO. Their access system for the blind and handicapped? Public Access Web System. PAWS. Their in-house cataloguing system (this one make me cringe)? CATalogue of the New York Public. CATNYP.
Nipples ain't the half of it, trust me.
Triv
Why not Internet Archite (Score:1)
NYPL? (Score:1, Redundant)
All the info and history, none of the urine smell! (Score:1, Funny)
How much is this? (Score:2)
And the New York Public Library Gets Slashdotted! (Score:2)
Wonder when they'll recover.
Re:And the New York Public Library Gets Slashdotte (Score:2)
Why doesn't Slashdot get slashdotted? That's not as silly a question as it sounds. I mean I can see when some individual's or some small business's site gets slashdotted. And of course in NYPL's case I'm sure it's gotten press coverage about their new collection from all over the world. But it seems some pretty sizable sites succumb.
But back to my question. Does Slashdot have a mighty server farm that most puny earthlngs cannot match?
What's the largest organization t
Where's the Web service? (Score:2)
Are they getting it? (Score:2)
Their scans are low resolution -- I don't just mean the thumbnails, but the actual scans they took, which are at up to 400dpi. This may be a good compromise for them, but isn't really archival quality: a lot of detail gets lost from engravings even at 800dpi. These days I generally scan at 1200di before down-sampling for the Web.
You can also see evidence that they laid the books on a flat-bed scanner. Well, I usually do the same, but the best results are obtained us