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.

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)"

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?

[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.

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?

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

[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

[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.

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.

Interesting

[elid]

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

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.

shouldn't there be

[vp_development]

an obligatory coral or google cache joke about this?

*.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)"

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

[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

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.

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".

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?

[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.

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: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.