[AT] Grain Binders and nudity....

Guy Fay fayguyma at execpc.com
Tue Mar 2 16:56:48 PST 2004


Great in theory. Real life and epierience suggest the following:

1. There's 1500 hundred photos up now. So everyone makes a copy, the 
archives doesn't make money, and it closes down. What about the other 
250,000 IH photos?
2. Everyone makes a copy on their home printer. But almost no one uses 
archival paper and inks in their home machines. No one has photos after 
5-10 years.
3. Many of the photographs in the archives are kept with their 
provenance- which means that there's information not only from the 
photo, but where the photo is located, or the other photos they're with. 
In fact, if everyone is keeping a set of photos at home, you'd WANT the 
label from the Historical Society on it to tell that it was an original 
IH photo, rather than a photograph taken 50 years after.
4. Even if the photos are stored digitally, file formats tend to change. 
Changing formats are a big problem in digital preservation-there's stuff 
the state's produced less than ten years ago that no one can read today. 
You want a physical image around for some time yet. Yes, .tiff seems to 
be pretty stable at the moment, but times change.

Funding the archives is a great way of ensuring permanence. Yes, fires 
do happen, and other disasters, but archives have professionals who can 
deal with those issues. A proper archives isn't just a bunch of boxes on 
a shelf. It's active preservation, guardianship, access, and collection 
of more for future generations.
Tim Bivens wrote:

>I am going to have to agree with most of what Cecil
>and Walt have said on this subject but for a somewhat
>different reason than has been mentioned. With all due
>respect to Guy and others that have mentioned all the
>hard work that so many have put into saving these
>photos and advertising items. That is precisely the
>reason that I hope there are as many copies made of
>them as possible. That way there is a better chance
>that future generations can have copies of them and
>more people can enjoy them. What we leave to future
>generations is much more important than copyright
>laws. I don't really care how they take the trip
>through time or if they are pirated or somebody makes
>money off them or whatever. We will all be dead a
>hundred years from now and this argument will be long
>forgotten but I hope there are some copies of these
>around for our great grandkids to enjoy. If I put in a
>lot of hard work to preserve an old photograph I would
>be glad for anyone that wanted a copy to have it. I
>would be much more concerned that it is preserved for
>posterity than worrying about whether me or anyone
>else makes money off it. The idea of "this is my copy
>and it's the only copy you can't have a copy of it" is
>a selfish attitude whether it is an individual,
>museum, or whoever. I know someone is going to come
>back with the argument that the Wisconsin museum is
>going to always have a copy but they may not always be
>available to to the public. The originals could get
>destroyed by fire. They could lose funding for their
>website. Etc. There a lots of ways these could become
>unavailable to the general public. Why would anyone be
>worried about a copyright on something as old as the
>1895 Buckeye ad that brought this whole topic up? I
>say let anyone that wants to copy let them have a copy
>of it. I have a rather nice copy of it copied on
>quality photo paper and hanging on my wall right now
>(with the garbage cleaned up off the right side).
>Probably going to frame it and my kids can have it
>when I die. So sue me.
>
>Tim Bivens
>Glen Rose, Tex.
>
>
>--- DAVIESW739 at aol.com wrote:
>  
>
>>The part i can't understand is if these were given
>>to the Wis, Histerical 
>>com. to post on the net free for all to see then who
>>is being damaged if one 
>>makes a copy even if he sells it and what can you
>>get for a copy anyway. Not much 
>>I would assume. And if you put it on your website
>>one here and one there who 
>>would even know it.  I don't think anybody is going
>>to just download everything 
>>that they put up and then make their own site and
>>charge to see it because 
>>that's just plain dumb. Why buy something that is
>>free anyway. people sure do 
>>get over excited about copyrights.
>>Rosie ODonnal sued a local radio station for using
>>the name Rosie as if she 
>>was the only person in the world with that name, she
>>lost of course and Spike 
>>Lee sued a Sat. channel for calling itself Spike TV
>>he also lost. Some people 
>>just go overboard on this stuff. If they were
>>loosing big money from someone 
>>using their copyright then i say go after them but
>>remember its only a picture 
>>and there has to many more copies out there owned by
>>others. And you can only 
>>hold the copyright as the original person who took
>>the picture and that only 
>>good for a specific time some of these pictures must
>>be way out of their 
>>original copyright by now. Also even if you make
>>changes by adding that sign on the 
>>side or correcting bad spots or other things you
>>still cnnot copyright it as 
>>yours it belongs to the guy who took the picture.
>>
>>I say just put them up and let things be as they are
>>why make everyone mad as 
>>they view the pics with all that garbage that the
>>crook doesn't care about 
>>anyway.
>>Well i have spent to much on this I agree with Cecil
>>clean the darn things up 
>>and post them to the net and then forget about all
>>the work that you have 
>>donabeen paid for its all past history by now.
>>
>>Walt Davies
>>Cooper Hollow Farm
>>Monmouth, OR 97361
>>503 623-0460 
>>_______________________________________________
>>AT mailing list
>>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>    
>>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
>http://search.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>AT mailing list
>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
>
>  
>




More information about the AT mailing list