NYPL Digital Gallery Open to Public

mountiealpha writes "The New York Public Library has digitized over 275,000 images from their colletions, and made them freely available available online. The 'NYPL Digital Gallery provides access to over 275,000 images digitized from primary sources and printed rarities in the collections of The New York Public Library, including illuminated manuscripts, historical maps, vintage posters, rare prints and photographs, illustrated books, printed ephemera, and more.'" Update: 03/04 17:30 GMT by Z : They're updating the site to handle high traffic volumes, but there is an informational page available with details on the site.

Comments

It's down

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to high traffic, etc etc and so forth

Did anyone get a chance to mirror that puppy before it was slashdotted into oblivion?

Re:It's down

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, got everything backed up right here. I'll e-mail you the terabyte zip if you want. Or just wait till I post it to usenet in 30K chunks.

Re:It's down

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

" Due to high traffic, etc etc and so forth"

A very professional 404. Much better than the standard one which causes noobs to question if "the internet is down"

Re:It's down

[Ced_Ex]

I can't help but think about Strong Bad's "The System Is Down" song.

Re:It's down

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be funny but people are posting 9 gig files on the usenet regularly. I'd say we're only a few years away from 50 gig HD-DVD rips.

Re:It's down

[PopeAlien]

Yeah.. whos idea was it to post a nypl gallery on slashdot anyways? everybody knows nerds love nypls.

Homer Quote...

[Capt James McCarthy]

You go smoosh now!

"Due to the overwhelming interest in the new Digital Gallery we are currently experiencing extremely high traffic. In order to address this demand we are temporarily taking the site down to increase capacity. We are working to bring the site back up as soon as possible and appreciate your patience. Please check back soon. (For information on the Digital Gallery, please visit http://www.nypl.org/press/digitalgallery.cfm)"

Re:Homer Quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

No freaking wonder it died under ANY load - it's written in ColdFusion!

That was very quick.

[vraddict]

From the Article:

"Due to the overwhelming interest in the new Digital Gallery we are currently experiencing extremely high traffic. In order to address this demand we are temporarily taking the site down to increase capacity. We are working to bring the site back up as soon as possible and appreciate your patience. Please check back soon."

Re:That was very quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Redundant? Come on now! The parent just mirrored the entire site in his comment. That's just friggin amazing! Informative mod deserved here!

!! SARCASM DETECTED!!

What License?

[DataPath]

Are they still under copyright? What license are these published under?

Re:What License?

[tmasssey]

From a look over the summary info, it seems that these are all works for which their copyright has expired (e.g.: public domain). No license is needed.

Re:What License?

[mboverload]

We are in a pretty pathetic state in society if a freaking LIBRARY can't give access to information.

I dare say they just provide them public domain if they are over 50 years old. Then we can see who the heartless smucks would sue them.

Re:What License?

[kryten_nl]

From reading the descripyion I would say: none. Scanning and uploading isn't a creative addition to the work, and from what I've read all the 'artists' have been dead long enough for ot to become public domain.

Re:What License?

[QMO]

They are giving access. Who do you think should fund the access, if not the people that are using it?

The library has nothing to do with whether the pictures are in the public domain or not.

A work being in the public domain doesn't mean that no one will charge you for access to it. It (more-or-less) means that ANYONE can charge for access to it. (See if your local bookstore is giving away free copies of _A Tale of Two Cities_.)

If you think that you can provide the service more cheaply try it. You may have just found out what the "???" stand for in the step before "Profit!".

Re:What License?

[Kurt Gray]

It is possible the the library owns these copies of each image and you would need their permission to republish their copies of each image unless they clearly state otherwise.

I've recently dealt with getting digital copies of 1870's historical photographs from various sources including libraries, city archives, historical societies, private collectors, etc. Even though the images are very old, way beyond even a Disney copyright, but in each case each archive owns their copy of the image so you can only use a copy of their copy under their terms and conditions.

Re:What License?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Considering an illuminated manustcript is a medieval manuscript with gold leaf highlights, usually used in religous texts, I would hope the copyrights would have expired by now.

Re:What License?

[DrinkingIllini]

I represent the estate of St. Thomas Aquinas and demand that the NYPL cease and desist the distribution of these materials.

Re:What License?

[docflan]

From NY Times article on this project:

"You can collect 'em, enlarge 'em, download 'em, print 'em and hang 'em on your wall at home. All are free, unless, of course, you plan to make money on them yourself. (Permission is required.)"

Re:What License?

[Anonymous Coward]

Always that making money limitation. There's so many uses that they limit by limiting whether you can make money on them.

I can't for example distribute them on CDROM for people to easily browse if I can't charge money for it. The web isn't the fastest thing you know.

And I can't use them to create a new work if I can't make money off them. I couldn't use any of the photos in the creation of a game.

Nor could I sell the paintings.

Now, you might ask why I should be allowed to make money on these things, but even though I'm making money on them, I'd also be spreading knowledge and information more widely than the ibrary could do alone. I guarantee you most people won't even know that this collection exists online, but if I sold a CDROM which contained all these texts in Best Buy stores across America, a lot more people would be exposed to them than would be otherwise.

And isn't that what a library is all about?

Re:What License?

[akb]

This is partially wrong. The faq states that though most of the images are public domain a license is needed for commercial use. In order to make commercial use you need to pay a fee and get a license.

I personally think its disgusting when people place additional restrictions on public domain material. That a library supported by public money does that is hard to comprehend.

Re:What License?

[akb]

The faq says that most of the images are in the public domain. Despite this apparently the NYPL says that only personal use is allowed and that a payment for a license must be obtained to make other uses.

I think its disgusting when people put additional restrictions on public domain material, especially when its a publicly funded library.

Re:What License?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are giving access. Who do you think should fund the access, if not the people that are using it?

The library has nothing to do with whether the pictures are in the public domain or not.

A work being in the public domain doesn't mean that no one will charge you for access to it. It (more-or-less) means that ANYONE can charge for access to it. (See if your local bookstore is giving away free copies of _A Tale of Two Cities_.)

Yes you can be charged by someone if they are providing access public domain works. However, I think you miss the really important point of the question. If these works are in the public domain, you, me and everyone else that views them can copy and use them to their hearts' contentment. For example, if I find an illustration from a public domain book that I want to set as my wallpaper, not even the most twisted of the IP lawyers can do anything about it.

Re:What License?

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally think its disgusting when people place additional restrictions on public domain material. That a library supported by public money does that is hard to comprehend.

Well, they are providing you a service, scanning these materials and providing them on the web. The did have to invest some time, effort, and money to do it. With that in mind, they offer it free for personal use, like most other services libraries traditionally offer. However, no one has an inherent right to profit from the work THEY did.

Re:What License?

[Kaa]

It is possible the the library owns these copies of each image

It is possible, but not very likely.

Copyright protection extends to CREATIVE works only. An exact reproduction of an image is not protected by the copyright because no creativity is employed.

in each case each archive owns their copy of the image so you can only use a copy of their copy under their terms and conditions

Umm... two comments. First, the archive "owns" their copy of the image in the meaning that they are free to give it to you or not. That's all fine. They can even give it to you only subject to a contract in which you agree to give up some of your rights, like a right to redistribute the image.

Second, the archive may want you to think that they own the copyright to the image. They may even believe it themselves. That does not make it so in reality.

Basically if you start redistributing these digital copies, the archive might be able to successfully sue you for breach of contract, but I doubt it very much they'll be able to sue you for copyright infringement.

Re:What License?

[Kurt Gray]

Good points, I should be more specific. AFAIK photographs created before 1922 are all public domain. So historic photo archives tend to publish copies of images from their collection with watermarks. If you want access to their original (ie. the unwatermarked version) then you have to sign their contract.

Re:What License?

[tmasssey]

First off: IANAL.

However, you cannot put restrictions on public domain material. The material is owned by the Public. As a member of the Public, you too own it; therefore, you can do whatever you want with it, including use it for commercial activities. Scanning in something doesn't give them rights to it any more than scanning a commercial, copyrighted book gives *you* rights to it.

Having said that, not all of the material may be in the public domain. Some of the material may be owned by them (as in the case of material that they purchased or was donated to them upon which copyright has not yet expired). In that case, yes, they have a right to license it in any way they see fit.

But they have zero rights to control the use of 16th century maps and pictures! :P)

Again, IANAL, yadda, yadda...

Re:What License?

[tmasssey]

I did some more digging. Here is an FAQ entry regarding the "usage fee" that talks about this.

They basically admit that the material is in the public domain, but that seeing as they own the material, they don't have to give you a look at it. I guess that's true. If you own a copy of a book in the public domain, you can reproduce it all you want. But it doesn't give you the right to break into your neighbor's house to get a copy of a book *he* owns that is in the public domain!

So, they're not charging for the image because they own the image, they're charging for the *file* because they own the *file*. I guess that's no more unreasonable than selling a copy of a book of the works of Shakespeare. Shakespeare is most definitely in the public domain, but it still costs money to print the books. People can and do both sell and buy them...

The interesting thing is this: while they can charge for the file, AFAIK they can't prevent *you* from both selling and giving away the file yourself. It's kind of like GPL software: you can charge as much as you want for it. You just can't prevent anyone *else* from giving it away themselves...

Re:What License?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's bullshit. There's no legal weight behind that.

Re:What License?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if they keep retroactively copyrighting things (as well as extending the copyright terms--the law named after Sonny Bono did both), we might end up in that state after long enough :/

Re:What License?

[dvdeug]

It is possible the the library owns these copies of each image and you would need their permission to republish their copies of each image unless they clearly state otherwise.

Nope; copies of images in the public domain have no new copyright, so barring other factors, you don't need their permission.

in each case each archive owns their copy of the image so you can only use a copy of their copy under their terms and conditions.

They own the physical copy; they have no rights over copies of that copy, unless they make you sign a license before giving you access to their copies.

Re:What License?

[FooAtWFU]

So... DrinkingIllini works for the Pope?

Re:What License?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, scanning a document could be compared to photographing it. The original material may be in the public domain, but the scan (photo) can be copyrighted. So, for example, if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, I can copyright the picture. Similarly (I assume; IANAL either), if I scan a work that is now in the public domain, I can copyright the scan.

Library piracy?

[dmf415]

Seems that Libraries have to follow certain guidlines in order to make these electronic reproductions.

Copyright Issues for Libraries When Digitizing Materials for the Web
When digitizing documents or other objects to be made available on the World Wide Web, a library first needs to determine whether the item is protected by copyright or whether it is in the public domain. If the material is protected by copyright, the library will need to obtain permission from the copyright owner before making the digitized copy available through the World Wide Web. If the item is in the public domain, the library does not need permission to digitize it and make it available.

more here:
http://www.mlcnet.org/services/copydigitize .php

Re:Library piracy?

[metlin]

Yeah, usually libraries have different ways of handling IP. Even state sponsored libraries have differences in the way they handle such material.

For instance, Georgia Tech's library is federally funded, but they do not allow everyone to access the digital copies of things such as journals and the like - only students, researchers & faculty.

This, despite the fact that the material can only be accessed from within the campus (or from outside if you have a GTech id, but then if you do have one you're part of the school anyway).

That brings to mind another question - are these images public domain or what? What about the way you use them?

Re:Library piracy?

[FuzzyDaddy]

In Virginia, the libraries of the state universities allow public access to all on line publications and journals to which they subscribe. However, you have to go down to the library, you can't access online.

It's sometimes a pleasant break from being in the office, and the nearest university is only 20 minutes from here.

Re:Library piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

> If the item is in the public domain, the library does not need
>permission to digitize it and make it available.

Most of these sites add in something that puts the images of public domain material under some copyright or restricted use.

That has to change so that library produced images of public domain material are released to the public domain.

FYI, I remember seeing a NY public library service where you requested a newpaper or magazine article, they would scan it in where the magazine was stored, and post it on an internal web site that you could access.

This was for NYPL patrons only.

Re:Library piracy?

[tmasssey]

According to the summary of information, the vast majority of the infomration, if not all, is before 1935, the typical cutoff date for the expiration of copyright.

Until they extend it again, anyway.

In other words, it would be covered by that last sentence: "the library does not need permission to digitize it".

Re:Library piracy?

[wmspringer]

Same in Colorado, at least at the universities I've been to.

Actually I've never been to ANY library that asked for ID before you could view their journals in-house.

Re:Library piracy?

[bigbigbison]

The main reason that universities limit the access to the online databases is money. They license those databases from companies and if one university let anyone access them online, then what motivation would other universities have to pay the licencing fees?
Here at IU to access them from off campus you have to use vpn to get into the databases

Re:Library piracy?

[metlin]

I agree.

The journals are usually paid for - and granting free access to them online would mean that they are distributing those journals - which the journals may not appreciate.

Re:Library piracy?

[metlin]

Which is a good thing, in many ways.

Actually, when I was at a certain famous national lab, you'd be automatically granted access to most journals the moment you even visit certain websites.

For example, you visit Phy. Rev. or Annalen der Physik and you'd notice that you do not even need to login, the website grants you complete access automatically. Which is kinda cool if you ask me =)

Why the fee for hi-res

[Anonymous Coward]

"High-resolution images are available for licensing for personal use and for professional reproduction through Photographic Services & Permissions."

Is this fair? I don't get why publically-funded institutions can charge for their services like this. It's like how NPR charges you for transcripts, but dumps them into Google News for searching. Quite annoying.

Libraries should be free.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[millwall]

It's already common practice for libraries to charge for renting DVDs, ordering books etc. so I wouldn't say it comes as a surprise that they charge for these pictures in high-res.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[Silver Sloth]

Libraries are free - as in speach. You want free as in beer.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[mogrify]

That would be fine if the institutions were 100% publicly funded, but they're not. They have to make up the difference somehow - public radio and television stations have to conduct fund drives and court corporate sponsors and charitable foundations. Their information doesn't belong solely to the public. Selling additional products and services over and above the fundamental purpose of the institution allows them to increase the quality of their services and provide a few extras.

I don't know whether NYPL is 100% public or not, but it looks like they did get outside help in the form of grants for this project.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[Nuclear Elephant]

Libraries are free - as in speach

There are a number of free spell checkers out there that are free as in beer :)

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[QMO]

Quote: "I don't get why publically-funded institutions can charge for their services like this. "

Kind of like paying to pay to get into a tax-subsidized stadium to see a sports event.
Kind of like paying tuition at public universities.
Kind of like paying for a stamp when the USPS was a part of the government.
Kind of like getting a tax assesment to fund the local library.
Kind of like paying a sewer bill.
Kind of like paying to use a public golf course.
Kind of like paying to get into a national or state park.
Kind of like paying your dues to the Lions, and donating extra for a certain project.
Kind of like paying the parking meter at the national mall.
Kind or like paying a toll on a public turnpike/bridge/tunnel.

Quote: "Is this fair?"

Response quote: "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

These things may or not be fair, but public libraries charging for non-basic services shouldn't be a big surprise.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[Anonymous Coward]

The NYPL does not charge for DVDs or CDs and the like - so maybe they won't charge for higher res images?

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow I'm glad I live in country where the public libraries are just that!

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[northcat]

Those are hi-res images. The copyright holders might only have allowed them put low-res images on the web freely. Or maybe they're charging for the bandwith. Or one of the other million reasons. As a non-US citizen, I've seen USA as usually fair when it comes things like this - government istituions dealing with their copyrighted material. Well, at least fairer than some other countries, including mine (India).

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean free as in bear surely.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[carpe_noctem]

You want free as in beer.

You're goddamn right we do!

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[metlin]

While the spirit of the argument is commendable, you should remember that the library probably *paid* someone to scan the pictures, someone to write the code and someone to implement the whole system. Probably a whole lot of someones, who need pay.

Not to mention the fact that they would need money for the infrastructure, systems and running costs. Now where would they get the money for something like that from?

Most libraries have just about enough money to keep the basic stuff running, let alone spend on something like this. So, unless they receive a fat grant for doing stuff like this, there isn't really much that they can do except charge for it.

Now, fair use would grant you permission to see the low-res versions, but they have every right to charge you for the high-res particularly since they invested money in bringing it to you in the first place.

While it may be unfortunate, I can see where they are coming from. Kinda inevitable, but on the bright side you atleast have something! :-)

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[ssk77077]

You've got to pay for photocopies at the library. Why shouldn't you have to pay for a high-res image? It costs them bandwidth instead of toner and paper.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[quasipalm]

If the images are public domain, one person can pay for the high-res images and then upload them to WikiMedia so others can access them freely.

Even with a fee, I'm glad the NYPL is doing this and hope that other libraries follow suit.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[JoloK]

No, libraries are a public service. They are certainly not free, as in speech. What would make you spout such a thing?

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[paradizelost]

No, not free 'as in' beer, free beer.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[westlake]

If the images are public domain, one person can pay for the high-res images and then upload them to WikiMedia so others can access them freely.

You want everything free, even if it means the library can no longer cover expenses or raise some much needed cash through sale or rental of the images.
Then you wonder why the collection has disappeared from the net or been licensed to Corbis, under terms that quarantee no one will be making a gift of high-res scans to a Wiki.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[Jodka]

AC wrote:

"High-resolution images are available for licensing for personal use and for professional reproduction through Photographic Services & Permissions."

Silver Sloth replied:

Libraries are free - as in speach. You want free as in beer.

Wrong. These images are not "free as in speach" [sic]. By the act of electronically duplicating images already in the public domain, the New York Public Library has re-established copyright on those images.

While the Silver Sloth raises an important issue, it gets the facts exactly wrong. Their copyrights have expired, but these images are neither free in the sense of beer nor free in the sense of freedom.

The test of whether a work is free as in "freedom" is this: Once I purchase one of these images for myself, am I restricted from redistributing it to others without charge. The NYPL states that you obtain a license to use these images, and that licenses are separate for personal or commercial use. This is NOT merely a fee for the service of providing you with a copy (beer), but rather a fee for license- and that license restricts your freedom by regulating how you may redistribute the image to others.

So Public libraries have a backdoor way to extend copyrights. Electronically duplicate the original image, on which the copyright has expired, then copyright the electronic duplicate. This must be the case, because the library clearly states that it licenses use of the scanned images. There could be no legal basis for a license except copyright.

You'd think the EFF would be all over this. I would REALLY like to see a legal test here. Someone please license a high-resolution image from the NYPL, then post the image file on your website for free download and alert the NYPL.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[Lovesquid]

Free ass in bare, perhaps?

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[Lovesquid]

Indeed, the library's in my city barely have enough income to keep their doors open, and a couple even operate at a loss in the city's budget books and the city has threatened to shut them down due to lack of use, sadly. I wish we had enough money for a project of this scope, but then again the NYPLS has some very weathly benefactors and prestige that allows for things like this to be developed.

Anything worth having is worth paying a reasonable price for, at least enough to offset the costs of whoever is providing it.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[thisissilly]

Paying for downloading a high-res image is fine (much like paying for a CD of GPLd software), but where do they get the authority to put subsequent usage restrictions on something clearly in the public domain?

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[AxelBoldt]

So Public libraries have a backdoor way to extend copyrights. Electronically duplicate the original image, on which the copyright has expired, then copyright the electronic duplicate.

No, you can't get a copyright for a mere scan, because making a scan is not a creative act. I believe they hope to use contract law somehow: by downloading a copy from their site, you implicitly agree to a contract saying that in return for the image you promise not to distribute it any further and not to use it for commercial purposes.

But I doubt that an implicit contract, where you don't even have to do as much as click on "I agree", would stand up in court.

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, I was one of those paid to do the meta-data for the NYPL project. I was paid to bring the cool stuff to you! Free for your viewing pleasure is some ultra rare stuff. ENJOY!
LOVE,
JESSICA

Re:Why the fee for hi-res

[Anonymous Coward]

the Research Libraries of the NYPL are "Public" practically in name only. Tax money keeps the lights on; they grovel for the rest from philanthropists and live off of endowments (as opposed to NYPL Branch Libraries, which are public in the way you assume).
It's really heartening to see so many of you looking to go out of your way to fuck over a mostly-private institution that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars of its own money to acquire, preserve, conserve, hire and train people to properly handle it, and now they digitize it and make it even more available. Somehow that's not enough for you? You apparently expect to be able to walk out the door with their property! a bunch of spoiled assholes you are.

Copyright

[Husgaard]

I wonder about the copyright to these images. Of course the copyright has expired on some images, but probably not all.

Is the reason that they can offer these images for download that painters and other picture artists don't have a extremist organization like RIAA or MPAA?

Re:Copyright

[Nuclear Elephant]

I would imagine they're using similar loopholes to google and their new books-online venture. I suspect something about their being nonprofit plays into their version of fair use.

Re:Copyright

[matt me]

Art is art and the beauty is intended for all to admire. Mass cash is only made when famous originals is auctioned by a museum and sold to a 'private collector' (or vice versa). Artists aren't nearly as rich as actors or musicians, but their work will keep their name on a plaque for decades.

No-one 'private collector' is going to decide not to pay a million dollar sum for a Monet original because they can look at it online.

Whereas music and movies are business, with labels trying to squeeze every drop of cash possible.

I don't know. This comment started well. Then I forgot what I meant to say. I think I'll go practice my moxious manoeuveuresrasrses.

Re:Copyright

[tmasssey]

No, it's likely that the copyright for the vast majority, if not all, of these items has expired. If you notice, most of them are pre-20th-century, and what *is* post-20th century (such as architectural diagrams) is covered by different types of copyright than that attached to artistic works.

Having said that, some of the work may still be covered by copyright; however, if the copyright holder has given permission for their works to be reproduced, this would not be a problem. That's a possibility as well.

Re:Copyright

['nother poster]

The original sources are most likely public domain, but the digital images that the library system made are copyrighted. They even have a licensing department that you can contact if you want to use the hi-resoloution images.

Re:Copyright

[ebrandsberg]

The answer is "they probably don't have a right" and will be forced to take many down. Just because you don't know who owns the copyright to something doesn't mean it doesn't HAVE an owner, it just means you may as well throw it in the trash because you can't legally do anything. For example, if you have a picture of a statue, with no information of where the picture was taken, when, by who, or who owns the copyright of the statue, can you do ANYTHING with that picture? Nope.

Re:Copyright

[lamona]

Even if you don't know who owns the copyright, fair use can still apply. So if the library is thinking that its use of the images falls within fair use, they don't have to know who owns the copyright. For older items, and especially items that were never published (manuscripts, hand-drawn maps, personal photographs) one rarely knows who the copyright holder might be. Claiming fair use is a bit of a risk, but I would guess that the library has done a risk analysis on the items that it is making available.

Re:Copyright

[ebrandsberg]

I agree that many of the items listed would be out of copyright, therefor fair game, but they have stuff included up to 1957 at least, which I don't think would qualify. They are advertising "free and open" on their webpage, implying that they KNOW that there isn't any copyright issues, so this isn't about fair use. What they are doing is the same as if I took an mp3 that I didn't know where it came from, and posting it online for anybody to download. Ignorance of a copyright doesn't protect them or anybody else.

Re:Copyright

[lamona]

I don't see why you dismiss the fair use possibility. Fair use is when you know that something is under copyright, or you cannot prove that is is not under copyright. You still make use of it because you determine, based on the criteria in copyright law, that your use is "fair." Fair use doesn't mean that you are ignorant of copyright, it's a judgment that you make with full knowledge of copyright law and its meaning. You could indeed take an mp3 and post it online and claim that your use is fair (based on the famous four factors in the copyright law, see link above). If you are wrong about your judgment, and the use isn't fair, the owner of the copyright can take you to court. That's why fair use is always a risk. You know that the risk is high if you are making copies of a hit song issued by a major recording studio; your risk is low if you are making use of an unnamed, unsigned, undated photograph that appears to be from the early 1900's and came from the library's archive.

Thanks New York Public Library!

[millwall]

Thanks New York Public Library for putting these 275,000 pictures online!

As a re-opening present for this nice gesture, we will... slashdot you!

Re:Thanks New York Public Library!

[grub]

Thanks New York Public Library for putting these 275,000 pictures online!

ahhh, ok, they're online. The speed of the site had me thinking they were scanning on demand.

Re:Thanks New York Public Library!

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't it be a good idea to have the links posted on Slashdot to be href-ed through a cache automatically? The overload on the target servers happens often enough for this to be seriously considered.

Re:Thanks New York Public Library!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a re-opening present for this nice gesture, we will... slashdot you!@

These will probably all end up on the Wikimedia commons sooner or later anyway, which will get them a load more bandwidth (and help to sort out what's what)

It might also be a good time to test Konspire2B and similar programs again, as we now have a new, large, public domain source of interesting stuff. Sounds like an ideal test dataset for P2P applications.

Will the pictures end up anywhere else, or is WikiCommons the main repositary for public-domain images nowadays? Presumably Gutenberg are interested. Any more Creative Commons sites?

Slashdotted within the first 2 posts?

[Nuclear Elephant]

Z: They're updating the site to handle high traffic volumes

So they went to all the trouble of scanning 275,000 works while expecting low traffic volumes?

Re:Slashdotted within the first 2 posts?

[ntshma]

Maybe they don't have a category for porn.

Re:Slashdotted within the first 2 posts?

[Nuclear Elephant]

There are already plenty of ASCII donkey porn exhibits out there anyway

Re:Slashdotted within the first 2 posts?

[xSauronx]

i don't think too many places *anticipate* a slashdotting. id be interested to see their traffic for today in comparison to their traffic a month from now; i imagine the bandwidth used today will be equal to bandwidth for a number of days a month from now.

In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems that all publishers have to follow certain guidlines in order to make these electronic reproductions.

Interesting

[elid]

I wonder if Google image search has already indexed this (would help with the bandwidth problems).

Re:Interesting

[tmasssey]

No, it wouldn't. Google only caches the tiny thumbnail. If that does it for you, great, but if you actually want to see the *real* image, Google won't help you.

Re:Interesting

[elid]

It would help people who are searching in the first place (they wouldn't use the library website for the search itself).

Double Up On Servers

[lbmouse]

made them freely available available online

Maybe maybe they should charge a little soemthing.
So that they can buy buy a new server.

Re:Double Up On Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe maybe they should charge a little something. So that they can buy buy a new server.

Considering they could have FedEx'd the whole lot to Jimbo and had them on the Wikipedia within hours with no bandwidth problems at all, I'd be surprised if they spent a lot of money on servers here...

Or, as people have noticed, generated html files in advance, and left Apache to do what Apache does best: serve files that already exist. Faster than a coldfusion database query.

I'd love to see some of these.

[HEbGb]

Anyone have a mirror of this site? :)

Re:I'd love to see some of these.

[blogeasy]

I'd like to see a mirror that could handle 275,000 images.

Not That Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Most peoples webservers can't handle a listing of 1 image. How smart is it to link a gallery of 275,000?

I See Something

[slipnslidemaster]

I really like the one print that they managed to place below the no bandwidth message.


You know...the Stormtrooper in a Snowstorm!

shouldn't there be

[vp_development]

an obligatory coral or google cache joke about this?

Teeny Tiny pics

[rochlin]

I wouldn't bother waiting for the server to clear. These are tiny pics (420x?). And so far as I can tell, on a limited variety of topics. You will have more fun google image searching, with far more entertaining results. This seems like a token or mininformed effort. Mostly useful for high school students?

Re:Teeny Tiny pics

[graphicsguy]

The site says they are available in three sizes, all for free download.

Re:Teeny Tiny pics

[kDodh]

The tiny image is only the thumbnail. you can pan and zoom if you install the internet explorer applet. the level of detail when you zoom in close in excellent.

*.cfm = Compleat Fucking Mess when slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

Why people still use "cold fusion" for image stuff is beyond me... are the images all blobs in a database? A shell script could pump out flat pages updated daily -- voila, no slashdot effect.

I once worked on a *.cfm project where everything had to go through like 5 layers of abstraction before anything happened... and they claimed it was all in the name of uh, efficiency(!) (maybe billing the client efficiency)

"Due to the overwhelming interest in the new Digital Gallery we are currently experiencing extremely high traffic. In order to address this demand we are temporarily taking the site down to increase capacity. We are working to bring the site back up as soon as possible and appreciate your patience. Please check back soon. (For information on the Digital Gallery, please visit http://www.nypl.org/press/digitalgallery.cfm)"

Re:*.cfm = Compleat Fucking Mess when slashdotted

[Reziac]

I didn't get the "we done took it down" message; I just got a shitload of ColdFusion errors. And I concur -- every damn time I've seen a CF site go under heavy load, it's proceeded to produce tons of such errors. Bah!!

I would think...

[Chordonblue]

...someone would be screaming for a 'torrent' about now. :)

funny stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the overwhelming interest in the new Digital Gallery we are currently experiencing extremely high traffic. In order to address this demand we are temporarily taking the site down to increase capacity. We are working to bring the site back up as soon as possible and appreciate your patience. Please check back soon. (For information on the Digital Gallery, please visit http://www.nypl.org/press/digitalgallery.cfm)

Writing

[psallitesapienter]

"...their colletions, and made them freely available available online."
Perhaps it's too early in the morning to be double checking orthography?

The real question is...

[kmartshopper]

did they add this http://www.redsoxconnection.com/pics/trophy.jpg picture to the library yet???

They have had some photos online for years

[glomph]

Like my favorites, the Lewis Hine photos of the Depression-Era construction of the Empire State Building. Anybody who says photography is not art should view them.
http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hi nex/empire/empire.html
Not slashdotted at the moment.

Re:They have had some photos online for years

[alnjmshntr]

I get a horrible feeling of vertigo just looking at some of those..

Re:They have had some photos online for years

[DanoTime]

Thanks for giving me a taste of what to expect... this should be quite good - and the empire state building photos were awesome.

Re:They have had some photos online for years

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for posting that link. I had not seen most of those photos before. The lack of safety tethers is amazing, but there was a depression on.

Re:They have had some photos online for years

[himself]

Did those guys show off for the photograher, or were they really that fearless? Construction worker bravado, or Depression-era nihilism? I mean, WTF does this guy do when his hat blows off?
http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hi nex/empire/hanging.html

Re:They have had some photos online for years

[glomph]

Lewis Hine was truly a great American. He used his technical skill and his artistic eye to expose the awful conditions the poor and unknown lived under. Learn a tiny bit more about him at:

http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_05.07.98/art/hi ne.html

There is only one way to prove a good website...

[mikehunt]

slashdot it!

Torrent

[XFilesFMDS1013]

Well, if they ever get back up, I guess someone can .torrent the pictures. I'm sure most of you here are used to downloading pictures, especially ones that are "digitized from primary sources and printed rarities".

Over HOW many pictures are available again?

[imrec]

Cause I didn't quite catch it..

groovy

[Anonymous Coward]

hope i can snag some cool wallpapers

Carrie Bickner

[ouzel]

One of their employees is Carrie Bickner, author of Web Design on a Shoestring, which I was leafing through this morning. Great book!

Copyright-like claims on public domain?

[Kaa]

Hmm... NYPL wants to charge a fee for providing a high-rez image. That's fine -- someone has to pay the expenses and charging for delivering to me a public-domain image is OK.

However, quoting from http://www.nypl.org/permissions/newpermissions.htm l : "If ordering reproductions for personal, research or study purposes only (with no publication rights granted) the fee is $30.00 per image." (emphasis mine)

Umm... where did this right to grant or deny publication rights appear from? If I get a public-domain image, from NYPL or anyone else, I should have the right to publish it as I see fit -- it's in public domain, isn't it? Is NYPL trying to get itself copyright-like rights through contracts (presumably you agree to some contract when you order the image)?

Moreover, there is a use fee schedule (http://www.nypl.org/permissions/UseFeeSchedule8_1 .PDF) which explicitly sets prices depending on WHO redistributes the images and HOW MANY image copies will be redistributed. This is all normal and standard operating procedure in the copyright world, but again, aren't many of the images we are talking about in public domain?

Why I should pay a different sum of money to NYPL if I want to distribute 100 copies or 100,000 copies of a public-domain image?

Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain?

[j.bellone]

Bring in a laptop with a high resolution scanner and start scanning images into your computer. When they ask you what you're doing, you tell them that you are scanning public domain books into your computer because you don't feel like paying their $30 fee. I'm wondering what they could do to you then.

Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, there is a use fee schedule (http://www.nypl.org/permissions/UseFeeSchedule8_1 .PDF) which explicitly sets prices depending on WHO redistributes the images and HOW MANY image copies will be redistributed. This is all normal and standard operating procedure in the copyright world, but again, aren't many of the images we are talking about in public domain?

So what's the deal?

(a) Can you get them without charge? If so, just host them. You can reasonably laugh off any copyright lawsuits because as you say this is all PD.

(b) Do you have to pay to get hi-res images? If so, don't pay for any image until you know that (1) you can host it, and (2) that nobody else has already paid for the public-domain image. It would seem strange that after all this effort yet more fundraising is required to get all the high-res images for free, but if the NYPL want to piss away all their karma and go down in history as IP-hoarders, that's fine by me.

Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain?

[slux]

This is very interesting to me since I only recently wondered about using a picture of such a work.

According to Wikipedia (they need to use a lot of pictures), exact photographic copies of two dimensional public domain images can't be protected by copyright in the US because they lack originality. So it would seem that: No, they can't place such a restriction these works.

This has a precedent in Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corporation.

Now what I'd really like to know is how does this compare to other countries.

Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain?

[Triv]

"Bring in a laptop with a high resolution scanner and start scanning images into your computer"...

If you honestly think that the document techs at the NYPL are going to let you get within fifty feet of a 17th century illuminated manuscript, laptop or no, you're out of your mind. It's not like they just pull them off the stacks and hand 'em over. Most books, yes, but not those. There's a pressurized vault underneath the HumLit building on 42nd and fifth that houses most of these volumes and it's only opened four times a day - 9am, noon, 1pm and 5pm, and that's only to let the digitization staff in and out for their shifts and lunch. You get permission to access these books by special request only, and then only with strict supervision.

The purpose of digitizing these volumes was to get them out into the open for people to see, and for that the library should be applauded, not fucked with.

(and before the flames start rollin', I worked in the vault, for preservation and collection care.)

Triv

Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain?

[thoromyr]

I'm thinking the same thing. I'm sure they are legally correct -- this "usage fee" that just happens to be exactly like copyright license fee.

I saw the $30 reproduction fee and I thought that was reasonable (well, perhaps a bit steep, but it covers the costs of providing the free lo-res). Then, what's this? The lo-res online images are only free for personal use?

What the heck! I have a lot of books published by Dover, all royalty free images that are in the public domain. I certainly don't mind paying Dover for the books -- after all, publishing etc. costs. The only restriction they try to put amounts to redistribution in competition. Fair enough. After all, if they can't make a living off of selling the books then no one has the books. Its a minimal cost.

But $30 for an image that you can't even distribute? And it is actually quite a bit more than that. A minimum order would be something like $100 for a single image ($30 image fee, $15 order fee, $50 minimum reproduction fee) for an image that they have already scanned. Otherwise, more.

What a way to blow something that could be so cool. I think what happened is someone figured out that they are sitting on a valuble collection -- they just needed to figure out a way to convert it into cash. I don't buy for a minute the crap they say about furthering education and discourse. This is simply an attempt to turn a buck.

I'm not anti-capitalist, but I can't stand liars and they are lying about their motivations and purposes.

thoromyr

And, yeah, it irks me that they pretend to offer up our public domain cultural heritage and then come in with a price tag.

Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

from the FAQ:
14. Why do I have to pay the Library a fee for use of public domain images?

NYPL provides free and open access to its Digital Gallery and images may be freely downloaded for personal, research and study purposes only. However, as the physical rights holder of this material most of which is in the public domain for copyright purposes, the Library charges a usage fee if images are to be used in any nonprofit or commercial publication, broadcast, web site, exhibition, promotional material, etc. The usage fee is not a copyright fee. You are free to obtain a copy of these images from a source other than NYPL. Usage fees help ensure that the Library is able to continue to acquire, preserve and provide access to the accumulated knowledge of the world.

---
In other words, there's no legal obligation to pay.

Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain?

[Triv]

Oh, sorry. What I meant to say was: I am a horrible waste of life and you should send disparaging emails to me at pinteresque@mac.com

Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain?

[base3]

Some prick with a web site of railroad memorabilia tried the same crap awhile back, even to the extent of claiming downloading a picture agreed with some draconian EULA.

After having been Slashdotted, I'm sure he realized it was unenforcable.

The best part of NYPL...

[Caspian]

...is that you can pronounce it "nipple". Read: "Nipple Digital Gallery Open to Public." Doesn't sound so boring now, does it? ;)

And yes, I used to live in NYC, and my friends and I always referred to it as "Nipple".

Re:The best part of NYPL...

[Anonymous Coward]

heh heh, I am glad I did a page search to see if anyone had posted this... nipple....lol

Re:The best part of NYPL...

[Triv]

I know you're kidding, (ok, half-kidding) but the NYPL is notoriously cute when it comes to naming their software, systems, etc. There's generally a cat theme to EVERYTHING.

Their online catalogue? Library Entrance Online. LEO. Their access system for the blind and handicapped? Public Access Web System. PAWS. Their in-house cataloguing system (this one make me cringe)? CATalogue of the New York Public. CATNYP.

Nipples ain't the half of it, trust me.

Triv

Re:The best part of NYPL...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oxford University's Radcliff Science Library: the RSL. Say it 10 times quickly...

Why not Internet Archite

[lesinator]

The Internet Archive (archive.org) has large collections of video, audio, and text. I've always wondered why they do not have an image archive.

Re:Why not Internet Archite

[paradizelost]

They don't do that because 99% of what they'd be archiving would be pr0n.

NYPL?

[athakur999]

When I first read that, I sounded it out in my head as "nipple"... Nipple Digital Library? Sounded good to me. I was pretty disappointed to see what the article was really about.

All the info and history, none of the urine smell!

[GatesGhost]

i dont even have to get off my fat ass to borrow a book and get mugged on the way back!

Cleveland Public Library...

[Anonymous Coward]

...also has : this, which has some more specialized stuff in it.

Safety?

[blakjack]

Like my favorites, the Lewis Hine photos of the Depression-Era construction of the Empire State Building. Anybody who says photography is not art should view them. http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hi nex/empire/empire.html/

Let's play a game.

How many hardhats can you spot?

Re:Safety?

[glomph]

The hardhats were all secretly diverted to undisclosed locations in Iraq, same places all those WMDs were hidden.

How much is this?

[fritter]

Does anyone have a conversion rate for New York Public Libraries to Libraries of Congress?

And the New York Public Library Gets Slashdotted!

[windowpain]

Way to go!

Wonder when they'll recover.

No. Copies of public domain images remain free

[Animats]

The original sources are most likely public domain, but the digital images that the library system made are copyrighted.

No. Can't re-copyright a copy of a public domain image. See Bridgeman vs. Corel. "In this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create "slavish copies" of public domain works of art. While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality -- indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances." -- Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge.

Re:No. Copies of public domain images remain free

['nother poster]

Cool, but then how does one of Bill Gates foundations own copyrights to so many digital representations of public domain works of art? Why do people have to pay to use photographs of items like the "Mona Lisa"? I have no idea what the quote that you used is actually saying since I haven't seen the ruling, but "spark of originality" is not a criterion of copyright. It probably has to do with the "slavish reproduction" meaning that there was no new content, therefore nothing to copyright. All they would need to do to add content to the images would be to have the image with a NYPL logo background, and viola. The image of the PD work aginst a NYPL background is something new they created, and is therefore elegible for copyright. This is why you can put PD content in films and photographs, and not somehow have the new item instantly become PD. If you have additional cites or pointers to additional information, I would really appreciate looking at it.

Re:No. Copies of public domain images remain free

[Animats]

It's not hard to find cites to Bridgeman vs. Corel. It's been commented on extensively.

The Bridgeman decision is based on the famous Feist vs. Rural Telephone case. This Supreme Court decision that phone directories are not original enough to be copyrighted created the third-party phone book industry. When the Internet came along, the Feist decision permitted a whole range of directory-type services. As the Court put it, "The originality requirement is constitutionally mandated for all works.", and "No one may claim originality as to facts." This last is why databases of facts are not copyrightable in the US.

Corbis has a clever, but legally questionable, scheme for claiming copyright on public domain images. They add digital rights management information to the image, and then copyright the DRM information. They then claim that copying the DRM information violates their copyright, and removing it violates the DMCA. That's very similar to the argument Lexmark made in Lexmark vs. Static Control, and it didn't work there: "Generally speaking, "lock-out" codes fall on the functional-idea rather than the original-expression side of the copyright line." and "Similarly, a computer program may be protectable in the abstract but not generally entitled to protection when used necessarily as a lock-out device."

Re:And the New York Public Library Gets Slashdotte

[windowpain]

Which reminds, as I reply to myself...

Why doesn't Slashdot get slashdotted? That's not as silly a question as it sounds. I mean I can see when some individual's or some small business's site gets slashdotted. And of course in NYPL's case I'm sure it's gotten press coverage about their new collection from all over the world. But it seems some pretty sizable sites succumb.

But back to my question. Does Slashdot have a mighty server farm that most puny earthlngs cannot match?

What's the largest organization that's ever gotten slashdotted?

Copyright-free Source vs. Copyrighted Image

[WallyHartshorn]

The Necronomicon (for example) is no longer covered by copyright. If I take a photograph of a page of the Necronomicon, my photograph is covered by copyright. Therefore, I can put restrictions on what you do with my photograph, even though the page that I photographed is copyright-free.

Re:Copyright-free Source vs. Copyrighted Image

[lamona]

If I take a photograph of a page of the Necronomicon, my photograph is covered by copyright.

NO NO NO NO NO. A photograph of a page of a book is not necessarily covered by copyright. It is if you have done some creative transformation, but if what you have is a simple reproduction then you cannot claim copyright in that reproduction. This is already covered in this discussion. Copyright is for works of creativity, not mere reproduction.

Sometimes the libraries that make copies and put them up claim that they own the digital images, ("own" in the rights sense), but they don't.

Re:Copyright-free Source vs. Copyrighted Image

[Lovesquid]

Just don't read it aloud into a tape recorder, and then leave it at an old cabin in the middle of the woods for a group of college students to discover. For instance.

Re:Copyright-free Source vs. Copyrighted Image

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, creative transformation vs. simple repro? If I merely take picture (film or digital), have I simply reproduced the object, or creatively transformed it by the nature of my medium? And when someone takes a picture of my picture, is that a simple repro or creative tranformation? Don't be hasty and answer based on accuracy. Subtlety may be out of favor, but it can still provide artistic impact.

You can't answer based on the objects themselves. You'll need to ask the 'artist'. Example, last week's 4'33" of silence, and it's spawn.

*drools*

[JLSigman]

Illuminated manuscripts? Holy cow, I can't wait until they're back online, me and a friend of mine will go pludering...

slashdotted

[Sir Tandeth]

Due to the overwhelming interest in the new Digital Gallery we are currently experiencing extremely high traffic. In order to address this demand we are temporarily taking the site down to increase capacity. We are working to bring the site back up as soon as possible and appreciate your patience. Please check back soon. (For information on the Digital Gallery, please visit http://www.nypl.org/press/digitalgallery.cfm)

Re:It's down They should use coral

[wiskinator]

They (and really everyone who slashdots)should check out Coral, I think it is just too cool for words. It would really beat the low bandwidth blues. Either that or turn those poor NYU servers into Egg Fryers.

Re:It's down They should use coral

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I have checked it out based on several slashdot references, it seems like a no-brainer, and all you have to do is add .nyud.net:8090 to any url and blazammo. Slashdot could even post coralized links , but nooooooo day after day, site after site gets frizzled. Whats the catch ?

Where's the Web service?

[slagdogg]

It would be fun to wire this up to an LCD photo frame or a high definition TV. A hell of a lot cheaper than commercial offerings, that's for sure.

NYPL?

[bluephone]

Am I the only one to read that as "Nipple"? I sure hope not...

For once it wasn't our fault

[kevinatilusa]

Actually, the site was experiencing difficulties with high traffic before it got mentioned here (possibly due to its mention on the NY Times site yesterday?)

Yo Zeldman! Yo Bickner!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, Jeffrey, Hi, Carrie. Love your work.

So ... What's the straight dope on copyright--for all your CSS-addicted standards-compliant webhead friends out here?

It seems clear that we can use the low-rez goods, no strings, on personal and 'research' sites. What if our sites make money? What if they're educational? What if they're non-profit but non-research? What up?

Thanks in advance,

The Huddled Masses Yearning to Rip Free

Are they getting it?

[Ankh]

I'm glad to see a library doing this.

Their scans are low resolution -- I don't just mean the thumbnails, but the actual scans they took, which are at up to 400dpi. This may be a good compromise for them, but isn't really archival quality: a lot of detail gets lost from engravings even at 800dpi. These days I generally scan at 1200di before down-sampling for the Web.

You can also see evidence that they laid the books on a flat-bed scanner. Well, I usually do the same, but the best results are obtained using a wooden frame to hold the book open at 90 degrees (so as not to strain the spine, and so the pages lie flat) and using a large format film camera. I imagine the Canon EOS-1 (16MPixels) would be useful, but at 1200dpi an image that's eight inches by ten inches would be over 100 megapixels (109.86 in fact). Texture in engravings is made by lots of very fine lines close together, and when you combine that with ink spread, the high resolution is needed to stop the gaps between the lines from dissolving into a grey mush.

You can see (and download) some of the images I've scanned (mostly public domain for people to use) at my Pictures From Old Books Web site.

I don't have resources to scan hundreds of entire books as they're doing, but on the other hand I don't sell the images either.

It just feels good to share the contents of these old books with people instead of keeping them locked up on the shelves! And that's what I want to see libraries doing, too, so despite any problems I see with their first attempt, I still think it's neat!

Liam

Yeah, we got it-- your wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I worked as a meta-data person on the nypl project, and i can tell you that they were NOT scanned on a flat bed scanner.
I am offended you would suggest such a thing. Do you know anything about the level of care, research, and planning that went into this years long effort? Give the NYPL some credit. The books contining the images which you see were photographed open, at 90 degrees, in a humidity-controlled room with great love and care by technology-hip folks wearing gloves. Geeez.
Think you can work at the library without knowledge about, or respect for how to deal with old books?

Stop it with the complaining,
this is a great gift, enjoy it.
Love,
Jessica