Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYPL Digital Gallery Open to Public

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the when-you've-got-to-read-illuminated-manuscripts-at-3am dept.

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.

11 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Why the fee for hi-res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Why the fee for hi-res by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    2. Re:Why the fee for hi-res by mogrify · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
    3. Re:Why the fee for hi-res by QMO · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    4. Re:Why the fee for hi-res by ssk77077 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  2. Double Up On Servers by lbmouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    made them freely available available online

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

  3. Teeny Tiny pics by rochlin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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?

    --
    A beginners' guide to Portland, OR?
  4. *.cfm = Compleat Fucking Mess when slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)"

  5. Torrent by XFilesFMDS1013 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

  6. Re:What License? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Copyright-like claims on public domain? by slux · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.