[PRCo] Re: Generic Description and Scanning

[Herb Brannon]

Ah, the "business" definition of "the almighty dollar". I'll stick with
Derricks reasoning.
Besides, that is not the real issue being discussed.
If every single photograph now at PTM were stolen by someone and sold to
make that "someone" a profit, would the museum suddenly be made poor ? No,
they would not. They would make as much money off the stolen prints as they
would the filed prints......namely $0.00.

The museum does not own them to begin with. They have possession of them,
which does go a long way in a court of law. However, a PTM photographer did
not go out and take every one of those photos, someone else did. That
"someone else" then donated their photos to PTM for what reason? It's my
thinking that the "someone else" donated them for two main reasons. One, to
insure they were maintained, and two, to allow the photos to be shared and
enjoyed by those who want to view them.

As I said before, PTM is not guarding the secrets of the universe
here...........they are just filing away streetcar photos which have been
placed in their possession.




On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:12, Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>wrote:

> From: Derrick Brashear <shadow at gmail.com>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Mon, May 23, 2011 8:53:30 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Generic Description and Scanning
>
>
> Google is no longer scanning old newspapers.
> We're going back to the model where newspapers want
> to sell from their archives. This may well be true,
> but before Google scanned, it effectively didn't exist because
> you couldn't find it. So, another means of furthering
> knowledge bites it in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
>
> --
> Derrick
> ________________________________
>
> ________________________________
>
> ________________________________
>
> Mr.Brashear,
>
> 'Almighty dollar'  isn't an issue is it.  Could we look from
> another perspective?  When asked what is the root of all
> evil the answer is often:  'money.'  This is dead wrong
> isn't it.  Money is inert.  "The problem" is the attitude
> toward money.
>
> I don't begrudge business making profits;  this is a 'part'
> of what makes the country great.  On the other hand
> businesses do rise and wane.  Is it time for newspapers to
> fold or will they be successful on the inet?  No one anywhere
> has this answer,  just opinion.
>
> Apply that to PTM scans of photos and documents.  The
> 'originals' were done for personal reasons, most without a
> profit motive.  Some were offered for sale to recover costs
> while hoping for profits to fund future 'originals.'  Deeding
> these items to PTM then allows the museum to sell copies
> to fund restoration.  Not a 'profit' item at this point, just a
> funding item.  Yet money exchange is involved.  I do not have
> a problem with this.
>
> Before computers little was offered by museums in the way
> of slides and prints because of the amount of work to
> produce the same.  Postcards were 'somewhat' popular
> because they were 'printed in quantity' as opposed to
> processing of negatives for individual prints which is
> very time consuming.
>
> The digital world offers relief from the above since only one
> scan is needed to produce a multitude of prints.  Low resolution
> scans for the internet significantly lowers the risk of 'illegal'
> use, even without watermark.  The university water mark is in
> the edge of the photo;  this is better than across the subject.
> True;  it allows for cropping, but where is the benefit for low
> resolution scans?
>
> I doubt it is a matter of 'if' but a matter of 'when.'  Digital prints
> or trolleys on the inet command some good prices.
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>


-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park