[PRCo] Re: Generic Description and Scanning

[Edward H. Lybarger]

Sorry, Herb. The museum does indeed own most of them, and in many cases has
obtained specific legal rights to them.

While I agree in principle with a lot of what has been said in this extended
discussion, there seem to be a lot of folks, who are not able to help for
one reason or another, attempting to direct PTM's policies and objectives.
With all due respect, PTM has a Board of Trustees for that express purpose.

As I said yesterday, when someone is absolutely serious about helping on a
REGULAR basis, and when proper equipment is available, the project will be
supported.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Herb
Brannon
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:42 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Generic Description and Scanning

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