[PRCo] Re: Fwd: Re: Philadelphia You-Tube Video

Sat Dec 27 21:36:59 EST 2008

my point exactly, though I still maintain that if the photographer is known, 
it is a nice act to so acknowledge.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Schneider Fred" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:16 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Fwd: Re: Philadelphia You-Tube Video


> My friend Richard:
> The source of those you tube videos is seldom really given.  They
> just float around the internet like particles of dust in the
> atmosphere.   Someone finds something he likes and he puts it on ...
> no name.  The very first one I pulled up to check is copyrighted by
> one person and posted by someone else ... thoroughly illegal unless
> person one told person two it was OK for him to do it  ... but it is
> being done.
>
> This is simply one of the things that has happened as a result of
> this era in which we are living.
>
> Technically it is probably wrong for any of us to forward most of
> what is on you tube.   But by this point someone else has put it in
> the public domain and he is the one punishable.
>
> Fred
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Richard Allman" <allmanr at verizon.net>
>> Date: December 27, 2008 11:22:53 AM EST
>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Philadelphia You-Tube Video
>> Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>
>> maybe in spirit of the season, just some good will and common
>> courtesy(not
>> that in these times it's all that common!): when posting such U-
>> Tube items,
>> to go out one's way just a bit and be sure to credit the source,
>> and if it's
>> not known, to welcome any help in identifying it so proper credit
>> can be
>> applied. Just a thought to keep things from being adversarial and
>> instead to
>> become collegial!
>> RICH
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Schneider Fred" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 10:43 AM
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Philadelphia You-Tube Video
>>
>>
>>> There is another issue here ...
>>>
>>> One of morals and ethics.   Whether or not it is legal or you get
>>> away with it, do you really want to violate someone else's artistic
>>> creation?
>>>
>>> Once it is so old that it is clearly in the public domain, i.e.
>>> postcards from 1910, then I see nothing wrong with copying them
>>> unless the original firm is still in business and trying to make
>>> money selling them.
>>>
>>> Harpels Studio in Lebanon, which took some wonderful pictures of
>>> Lebanon Valley Street Railway, Cornwall Railway, Cornwall and
>>> Lebanon, and so forth in the 1890s and later, was still more than
>>> willing to sell prints in 1963.   That, to my mind, would be an
>>> exception.   The family was still running the business.   They're not
>>> today.
>>>
>>> And in the 1990s the firm in Havertown that did all the photography
>>> for the Budd Company was still very much alive and more than happy to
>>> sell pictures of RDC cars, the California Zephyr or anything else
>>> Budd built and they photographed.   I went through their files on
>>> behalf of Don Duke when he was doing the RDC books.  I don't see the
>>> firm on the West Chester Pike any longer.
>>>
>>> But if you can they are clearly in the public domain and the firm is
>>> out of business.   Have at it.  There are a lot of people out there
>>> who try to scare you off by saying they will prosecute to the fullest
>>> extent of the law if you steal from them ... and they really own
>>> nothing.   If they bought a negative from someone who took it in 1930
>>> and that man sold and traded prints all over the country, sorry, but
>>> that is in the public domain.   There is nothing he can do to claim
>>> rights.  He merely owns a negative.
>>>
>>> But again ... morals, ethics, and do you want people stamping on you
>>> in the same way you want to walk on them????
>>>
>>> On Dec 27, 2008, at 9:04 AM, BobDietrich wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's me again trying to stir up a little controversy.  If this has
>>>> been
>>>> discussed lately then just ignore me.
>>>>
>>>>   This video on U-tube looked familiar to me but I don't remember
>>>> from
>>>> where, it seems I saw it from a tape.  Than at the end credits went
>>>> to Rob
>>>> Moorse (or some such name).  So how do we know a retired truck
>>>> driver from
>>>> Belgium (Daddycool9) has permission to let the world view it for
>>>> free?  I
>>>> was never aware of, or concerned with, copyrighting until I got on
>>>> this
>>>> list.  You all seem very protective of photographs being reproduced
>>>> without
>>>> permission, isn't this the same thing?
>>>>
>>>> Are we promoting unauthorized u-tube videos here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
>>>> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Schneider Fred
>>>> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 8:30 PM
>>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>>> Subject: [PRCo] Philadelphia You-Tube Video
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many of you probably have seen this before.   If not enjoy. All the
>>>> scenes were taken in West Philadelphia in 1951.
>>>>
>>>> The city had 55% more people living within its borders than there
>>>> are
>>>> there today and a lot more justification for rail transit as a
>>>> result.  (The inverse number?   A loss of 35%.)   A few years after
>>>> these films were taken, a massive conversion program brought 1,000
>>>> new buses to the city.   What the railfans neglect to tell you was
>>>> that in the process, over 600 transit vehicles simply disappeared
>>>> from the streets of Philadelphia within three years because were no
>>>> loner needed ... people moved to the suburbs; those who remained
>>>> preferred to use automobiles instead of trolleys.   Yes guys, at the
>>>> end of the conversion 1000 buses had replaced 1600 buses and
>>>> streetcars because of declining demand.
>>>>
>>>> We can argue that rail will sustain higher patronage levels but we
>>>> can't argue that rail today would be valid on all the routes that
>>>> PTC
>>>> had in 1950 because the people just don't live there anymore and the
>>>> jobs are not there either.
>>>>
>>>> But you'll find these interesting.  All were taken within roughly
>>>> one
>>>> mile of Pennsylvania Railroad's 30th Street Station.   The pictures
>>>> of the street cars and Market Street subway-elevated trains running
>>>> side-by-side are at the 24th and Market Streets portal of the
>>>> subway.   Both came to surface there and crossed the Schuylkill
>>>> River
>>>> on a bridge.   The film ends with the trolleys coming inbound out
>>>> from under the elevated in front of 30th Street Station and heading
>>>> toward the portal.  In between there are a lot of surface streetcar
>>>> scenes, mostly in the area around the University of Pennsylvania.
>>>> Those lines are, for the most part, buried in the subway extension
>>>> that occurred in the fall of 1955.  (The Market Street subway-
>>>> elevated was extended from 24th to 46th St.), the trolley subway was
>>>> extended over to branches to 36th St.)
>>>>
>>>> Do you not find amazing how fast PTC motormen ran their charges?
>>>> Those were 25 mph cars riding on maximum traction (maximum
>>>> derailment) trucks and they were running them for the most part,
>>>> flat
>>>> out.    I thought the films might have been speeded up from 16 to 24
>>>> frames per second but the pedestrians look to moving at comfortable
>>>> paces.
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06jIGTbrIUk&feature=related
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>