[PRCo] Re: Generic Description and Scanning

[Herb Brannon]

I'm in Pittsburgh several times a month. I can give some help. That is, if
someone (anyone) at PTM would set up the project.










On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:18, Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park