[AT] Grain Binders and nudity....

Wed Mar 3 05:57:08 PST 2004

Guy  what about changing the Historical Society logo from a blocked out
black and white to something like a watermark,  every bit as permanent and
identifyable but not so intrusive to the eye of the viewer?

Charlie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guy Fay" <fayguyma at execpc.com>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [AT] Grain Binders and nudity....

> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at