DB Annex

from Matt Haughey:
If you re-read the LoC stuff, they simply "request the courtesy of a
credit", meaning, nothing is required by law.

Public Domain by definition means there is absolutely no owner, and
anyone can do anything they want with it. I've seen numerous Project
Gutenberg mirrors and spin-offs, thanks to everything being Public
Domain there.

I worked at the Creative Commons for four years, I helped launch the
movement and worked closely with Lawrence Lessig to make up the
licenses. I'm well-versed on the law.

The bottom line is that while it'd be nice if the guy mentioned the
source, he doesn't legally have to do anything, and it appears he
doesn't mention them, which isn't breaking any law.

Matt
-

With all due respect Matt, what the fuck does the law have to do with anything?
"Public Domain by definition means there is absolutely no owner, and
anyone can do anything they want with it"
Yeah? So where is "it"?
Lying on the ground in Washington D.C.?
The presence of those images online is not the result of some inevitable progression from photographer to collector to free public access. There's a tremendous amount of custodial work involved there. Screw the letter of the law, it's the spirit, and not of the law, but of something higher than law which pertains more to the thing we are and the things we do as a common enterprise, the human thing we all are here, moving through time and doing all these things we do, including making, and looking at, photographs.
My main point, trying to be brief and succinct here, is they - the LoC - do, yes, they do merely ask, clearly and nicely, for attribution, but - key, important, vital - they don't *have to* put those images out there, made digitally available to anyone with an internet connection. They could lock them up behind a paywall, tout d'suite.
Part of the mandate for librarians generally is to do that, make information freely accessible, but it isn't particularly a legal issue, that's more economic, eh? It becomes a legal issue only when it's made into one. Or is money really the transcendent human valence so many would like it to be? I'm assuming you don't believe that.
The overlap between law and morality, or ethics or whatever categorical distinction you want to work with, that's a big wide territory, and in a lot of people's lives they're synonymous, but then a lot of people voted for Bush in the last election. A whole mega-bunch of people think anything that's not against the law is good to go, but I'm still possibly naively assuming decent and relatively intelligent is the default human condition. So that scams of this nature are aberrant, not status quo ante. You seem to indicating a position to the contrary, or a neutrality that's tacitly permissive.
You're straddling a fence that was put up in the middle of the night by claim-jumping scalliwags.
So okay, you're not legally required to step in, he's not legally required to cease and desist, the LoC is not legally required to make those images available, Bush is not legally required to pull out of Iraq, and I'm not legally required to do all I can to prevent World War 3 from wiping out the entire mammalian branch of the tree of life. Everytime I run that logical chain I end up back at - Do Something!
You're letting this parasite use your site to further his own petty nefarious money-scheme, I could give a rat's ass whether that has any legal aspects or not.
He's profaning something that I think will prove to have been, at the end of the day, when things are all in perspective, sacred. And you're, passively, enabling that.
Yes, they're subtle issues, and murky, and ethically indistinct, but then important questions quite often are.

Thanks for replying.

cheers
msg

To Joerg Colberg -
I'm not objecting to the *use* of the imagery.
Not at all.
I do that. I want to keep doing that.
Using them, juxtaposing them, yes.
I'm objecting to the misuse of the archival labor.
How is it being misused?
By its not being attributed, acknowledged, recognized.
These images are not floating around in some nebulous virtual-reality
space - they're archived at the LoC.
The LoC specifically asks for attribution from anyone using their
gathered materials. They could password-protect their archives at the
drop of a hat, and they have every legal right to do that. But it
isn't a legal issue is it?
It's moral, ultimately, the law issues from the ethic, not vice versa.
Once dude has acknowledged that, that all his "labor" was actually
being done by scholars and interns at the Library of Congress, his
little scam falls to nothing, because as you say anyone can do what
he's done.
The difference is acknowledgment, not use, primarily, and only
secondarily about trying to make it pay.
Someone making a poster of the Mona Lisa isn't monopolizing all access
points to it. This would be impossible.
Whereas someone copyrighting something that's in the p.d. and then
bottlenecking public access to it, in other words *removing* something
from the p.d. simply because they got the opportunity to do so and
lack the necessary emotional engagement with life and art to prevent
themselves from resisting the temptation, is.
It's not a vague distinction but a necessarily fine, in the sense of
narrow and requiring precision, one.

The LoC site:
"When material from the Library's collections is reproduced in a
publication or website or otherwise distributed, the Library requests
the courtesy of a credit line.

Ideally, the credit will include

• reference to Library of Congress, and
• the specific collection which includes the image, and
• the image reproduction number (negative, transparency, or digital id number).

Such a credit furthers scholarship by helping researchers locate
material and acknowledges the contribution made by the Library of
Congress."

"Furthers scholarship".
He's doing the diametrically exact opposite.
I'm reminded of Hesse's "Magister Ludi" - all those scholars at their
wonderfully arcane tasks - and here comes some cigar-chewing
entrepeneur on the make, trying to harness their selfless labor to his
own little get-ahead machinery.
Expropriation, appropriation, la-di-da.
There's something sacred in the vast digital halls of gathered and
filed imagery there, like a profound collective memory. Further
gathering, display, illumination, augments that - co-opting those
images for selfish gain prevents it.

My position isn't as knee-jerk as it seems at first glance, I think.

cheers
msg

-
Joerg:
Then email the LoC and tell them.
-
from Matt Haughey of Metafilter:
Since they're all public domain images, it's totally free for him to
do what he's doing -- you don't even have to give attribution to the
original photographers. He's not breaking any law, and I do see him
referencing the original photographers in some places, so that's good.

It's essentially what Disney does with everything that made them
famous: you scour public domain archives, pull out the interesting
bits, then republish it as something new (for profit).

Matt
-

On 3/28/07, Matthew Haughey wrote:
> Since they're all public domain images, it's totally free for him to...

Dude they're all p.d. images >>*from -one- source*<< - The Library of Congress. That's it. Here's the LoC on reproduction:

"When material from the Library's collections is reproduced in a publication or website or otherwise distributed, the Library the requests the courtesy of a credit line. Ideally, the credit will include

• reference to Library of Congress, and
• the specific collection which includes the image, and
• the image reproduction number (negative, transparency, or digital id number).

Such a credit furthers scholarship by helping researchers locate material and acknowledges the contribution made by the Library of Congress."
To say nothing of setting up a little "gallery" or "museum" and selling prints essentially lifted off someone else's work. Not the photographers' work, which is yes in the public domain, but the Library's - as if all those hardworking souls were insignificant drones, existing just to provide the raw materials for some asswipe's little home enterprise.
These images aren't floating around in some nebulous virtual tidepool, they're in the archives of the LoC and they're there because of a lot of hard boring drudgery - going through donated photo collections cataloging and scanning (hundreds of thousands of) images and digitally rendering them, and there they are, out on the interstices of this new public domain, which, in case you're all inured to it, is crawling with chancers looking to cash in on anything regardless of any ethical nonsense like honor and responsibility.
Scammer boy is just hitchiking on that and letting the default assumption ride, that he's somehow collected these images himself and enterprisingly put together a little business around his efforts.
Horseshit.
National parks are in the public domain. Pretty much.
Want to buy a couple acres next to a fabulous waterfall? I just happen to have some lots left - better hurry though!
M.H:
"It's essentially what Disney does with everything that made them famous: you scour public domain archives, pull out the interesting bits, then republish it as something new (for profit)."
And where are you in that?
Man from Aldebaran17? Disinterested alien observer?
Disney, commons, public - all same, just actors on a wide stage, gee I wonder who'll come out on top?
Disney rips off the public domain - cool! Big money! Way of the world, hey, you know, it's how things are. Welcome to the jungle etc.
This is the antithesis of open source creativity, and you're enabling it.
And that's why I wrote to you the first time, and that's why I'm writing to you now. I haven't dropped a dime to the LoC about this because I'm uncomfortable with the snitch-level aspects of that - but make no mistake, I love those guys and what they've done with their resources, and I'll go a long way to defend what I see as open and furthering custodial labor against scammer-jammer opportunism - raw mediocre greed in short.
And so far I'm not at all convinced by your reasoning, such as it is, or clear as to your position, such as it may be, on this.

cheers
msg

You're missing the point of what the public domain is. It contains
everything that's not covered by copyright, so people can do with it
whatever they want. And they do - it's a society based on money. I
mean if you extended your argument people wouldn't be able to sell
posters with Da Vinci Mona Lisa's, or you wouldn't allow selling
Albrecht Duerer's Praying Hands - oh so popular with the religious
crowd.
Whether you like it or not, a photo that is in the public domain
can be used that way, and that's just the way it is. I find examples
where people use copyright to suppress important new art (most famous
example: Disney) much more important than this.

> The public domain is vulnerable to exploitation because it's public,
> and therefore free.
> It's precisely that quality of the p.d. that I'm trying to defend, its
> free-ness.

If you don't want to buy such a photo, then you can go to the LoC,
download the photo yourself and print it yourself. That's the
difference between something that's in the public domain and something
that's covered by copyright restrictions. And there are good reasons
why that's the case, regardless of whether this right is being abused
(which is debatable here) or not.

Best,
Joerg
-

I'm not objecting to the *use* of the imagery.
Not at all.
I do that. I want to keep doing that.
Using them, juxtaposing them, yes.
I'm objecting to the misuse of the archival labor.
How is it being misused?
By its not being attributed, acknowledged, recognized.
These images are not floating around in some nebulous virtual-reality space - they're archived at the LoC.
The LoC specifically asks for attribution from anyone using their gathered materials. They could password-protect their archives at the drop of a hat, and they have every legal right to do that. But it isn't a legal issue is it?
It's moral, ultimately, the law issues from the ethic, not vice versa.
Once dude has acknowledged that, that all his "labor" was actually being done by scholars and interns at the Library of Congress, his little scam falls to nothing, because as you say anyone can do what he's done.
The difference is acknowledgment, not use, primarily, and only secondarily about trying to make it pay.
Someone making a poster of the Mona Lisa isn't monopolizing all access points to it. This would be impossible.
Whereas someone copyrighting something that's in the p.d. and then bottlenecking public access to it, in other words *removing* something from the p.d. simply because they got the opportunity to do so and lack the necessary emotional engagement with life and art to prevent themselves from resisting the temptation, is.
It's not a vague distinction but a necessarily fine, in the sense of narrow and requiring precision, one.

The LoC site:
"When material from the Library’s collections is reproduced in a publication or website or otherwise distributed, the Library requests the courtesy of a credit line.

Ideally, the credit will include

* reference to Library of Congress, and
* the specific collection which includes the image, and
* the image reproduction number (negative, transparency, or digital id number).

Such a credit furthers scholarship by helping researchers locate material and acknowledges the contribution made by the Library of Congress."

"Furthers scholarship".
He's doing the diametrically exact opposite.
I'm reminded of Hesse's "Magister Ludi" - all those scholars at their wonderfully arcane tasks - and here comes some cigar-chewing entrepeneur on the make, trying to harness their selfless labor to his own little get-ahead machinery.
Expropriation, appropriation, la-di-da.
There's something sacred in the vast digital halls of gathered and filed imagery there, like a profound collective memory. Further gathering, display, illumination, augments that - co-opting those images for selfish gain prevents it.

My position isn't as knee-jerk as it seems at first glance, I think.

cheers

metafilter:

You guys are linking to this guy:
http://shorpy.com/
http://www.metafilter.com/59584/The-100-Year-Old-Photoblog
He's selling public domain images he's mining out of the Library of Congress digital archives.
But he's not acknowledging that.
He's not giving credit to the people who are doing the research and archiving work that he's exploiting.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html#question4
It looks like he's doing lots of field work and compilation, but it's the staff at LoC who are doing it, as is obvious to anyone who's browsed their digital archives. I wouldn't mind if he was throwing images that he'd found there, if he was attributing them. but he isn't, and it's a scammy sleazy thing to do. Plus there's those restrictions at the Prints and Photographs Division site that he's violating, and if they get on to it they might shut off access to the rest of us, who aren't co-opting the free imagery there for mercantile purposes.
I'd have left this comment at the page itself but the headache of paying to do that is an obstacle.

cheers and thanks for your attention

-
email exchange with Joerg Colberg:

Hi Michael,

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. [not the first time I've heard that, is it]
Unless you're more specific with regards to "shorpy" (whatever that is) I can't help you.

Best,
Joerg
-

Joerg-
herewith are some I hope clearer and more precise links to what this is about:

Shorpy, "a beautiful photo blog of life for the past 100 years."
http://www.shorpy.com/node/81
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/nclc.01128
that's the first image that caused me to check.

Here's the current front end
http://www.shorpy.com/node?page=8
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/fsac.1a34274

Here's the kottke.org linkage
http://tinyurl.com/2ljryu

and it's on metafilter:
http://www.metafilter.com/59584/The-100-Year-Old-Photoblog

This is my personal response to it:
http://dirtybeloved.blogspot.com/2007/03/if-only-id-thought-of-it-first-letter.html
Unfortunately I don't have the readership to do much about it.
And metafilter wants money to comment there.

It's got a technorati listing, for what that's worth.
http://technorati.com/search/shorpy

I'm not whining about his throwing the images up, and of course people
like them - it's the complete lack of attribution, and the
merchandising of public domain stuff without the acknowledgment.
As though he's researching anything. He's just browsing the parent
directories at LoC.
Strip mining the public domain.

Browsing the directories there is what I do, as well. But I'm pretty
careful to throw the links back to the people who have done the real
work of making the imagery available.
And as I said what I'm afraid of is that because of his mercenary
stupidity the LoC will be pissed off enough to close down access to
the deeper parts of their wonderful archives.
I'd sure appreciate some help. I don't want to snitch him off to them,
I'd prefer it be settled on the net by the communities involved. And I
don't need any recognition personally.
This is sleaze working against art, and it should be stopped.

cheers
msg

-
> I'm not whining about his throwing the images up, and of course people
> like them - it's the complete lack of attribution, and the
> merchandising of public domain stuff without the acknowledgment.

I must be missing something, but this is what the public domain is
about. You can record a public domain song and sell a CD that contains
the song. Same thing.

> This is sleaze working against art, and it should be stopped.

I disagree.

Best,
Joerg
-

If Alan Lomax or somebody had gone into the Georgia backwoods and recorded some old mountaineer with a five string banjo and a bunch of songs nobody'd ever heard before and you, taking advantage of the fact that nobody'd ever heard of Alan Lomax either, recorded those songs exactly, or as exactly as your talent allowed, and in the same order as they appeared on the field recording, without ever acknowledging Lomax's primary contribution - that would be sleazy. Not the passing it on, not the singing and playing, but the bypassing of the hard work of that crucial and necessary intermediary.
It's like your plagiarism riffs - of course people are going to see that bridge and those lights and those buildings in much the same way, and if some master hits the light just right the up-and-coming will want to get there too or near it as well. When you find two images that are similar you naturally wonder which came first, if there's any connection, and key point - if there's any conscious co-opting going on.
And the debate is more than at least a little to do with *conscious* appropriation isn't it?
The public domain is vulnerable to exploitation because it's public, and therefore free.
It's precisely that quality of the p.d. that I'm trying to defend, its free-ness.
I'm not bothered by his using the images, posting them, creating a web site devoted entirely to them, I use a lot of them in precisely that way, and in fact some of this is probably about my own inclination toward doing a pretty much all-LoC all the time site in the near future.
But I would never associate it with merchandising no matter how broke I got, not in the way he's done.
This guy's scamming people, vaguely and obscurely, but it's scamming nonetheless.
Also there's this:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html#question4
The difference between
Hey! look at this that these guys made available to me and to all of us
and
Hey!, look what I found! Now, if you want more you'll have to go through me to get it.
Also since I put that comment up at kottke, the guy's altered his site so that the two images I pointed to as lifted directly - which all the images I checked are, not some - all of them, right out of the praent directories at LoC - those images I linked to are now buried int he archives.
Not exactly a champion of the free use of the public domain.

Maybe it's a small matter, my heart says no, but I have a lot of respect for your aesthetic ethic so am listening...

cheers