4 ms·

The British Library Puts Over 1M Images in the Public Domain

216 points by benbreen 11y ago

dvliman 11y ago
in case if anyone interested in the mechanical curator bot source code: https://github.com/BL-Labs/embellishments https://github.com/BL-Labs/embellishments
- mkesper 11y ago
  There's also an RSS feed of findings: http://mechanicalcurator.tumblr.com/rss http://mechanicalcurator.tumblr.com/rss
scholia 11y ago
Interesting... but the million images were released in December 2013. http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013...
- devindotcom 11y ago
  Maybe someone's been counting them this whole time and just got to the end.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
acabal 11y ago
To be clear, the images are already in the public domain; that is, they are not restricted by copyright. The British Library has, however, made accessible these public domain images via a web interface. Their status as images belonging to the public is not related to their being made accessible by the British Library.
- legulere 11y ago
  Note that at least in some countries just scanning may be considered enough work that the scanned version is again under copyright. See the questionable German Projekt Gutenberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projekt_Gutenberg-DE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projekt_Gutenberg-DE
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    The wikipedia article is a bit thin on details - for example are they claiming their compilation is a new copyright (it most likely is) or are they claiming their individual scans of historic works each are copyright to them? Is there a proper English language discussion of any court case in which this has been tested for this particular claim? For reference this http://www.jcms-journal.com/articles/10.5334/jcms.1021217/ http://www.jcms-journal.com/articles/10.5334/jcms.1021217/ is quite a good review of the NPG vs Coetzee non-case [English law] and the Bridgeman vs Corel case [USA law].
- ig1 11y ago
  You're confusing US and UK Law. US case law tends to favour the view that scanned documents become public domain, there is no such case law in the UK. In particular the BL position is that due to the proprietary scanning technology they use they inherit copyright on the new works. You could potentially challenge that position in court, but at the moment there's no evidence for how a court will treat it.
colinramsay 11y ago
Related: does anyone know the "best practise" around digitising photos and images? What file format is used? What scanning equipment? What's the standard resolution/DPI used?
- breakall 11y ago
  Not sure I can advise on the best practice, but I know how NOT to do it: my buddy just told me that a family member spent untold hours digitizing decades of family photos and documents... all at a resolution of 1024x768. headdesk
- colinramsay 11y ago
  Replying to myself: I found this document which lays out how archive.org do it. https://archive.org/details/ProcessDocument https://archive.org/details/ProcessDocument

216 points by benbreen 11y ago

in case if anyone interested in the mechanical curator bot source code: https://github.com/BL-Labs/embellishments https://github.com/BL-Labs/embellishments

mkesper 11y ago
There's also an RSS feed of findings: http://mechanicalcurator.tumblr.com/rss http://mechanicalcurator.tumblr.com/rss

scholia 11y ago

Interesting... but the million images were released in December 2013. http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013...

devindotcom 11y ago
Maybe someone's been counting them this whole time and just got to the end.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

acabal 11y ago

To be clear, the images are already in the public domain; that is, they are not restricted by copyright. The British Library has, however, made accessible these public domain images via a web interface. Their status as images belonging to the public is not related to their being made accessible by the British Library.

legulere 11y ago
Note that at least in some countries just scanning may be considered enough work that the scanned version is again under copyright. See the questionable German Projekt Gutenberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projekt_Gutenberg-DE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projekt_Gutenberg-DE
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  The wikipedia article is a bit thin on details - for example are they claiming their compilation is a new copyright (it most likely is) or are they claiming their individual scans of historic works each are copyright to them? Is there a proper English language discussion of any court case in which this has been tested for this particular claim? For reference this http://www.jcms-journal.com/articles/10.5334/jcms.1021217/ http://www.jcms-journal.com/articles/10.5334/jcms.1021217/ is quite a good review of the NPG vs Coetzee non-case [English law] and the Bridgeman vs Corel case [USA law].
ig1 11y ago
You're confusing US and UK Law. US case law tends to favour the view that scanned documents become public domain, there is no such case law in the UK. In particular the BL position is that due to the proprietary scanning technology they use they inherit copyright on the new works. You could potentially challenge that position in court, but at the moment there's no evidence for how a court will treat it.

colinramsay 11y ago

Related: does anyone know the "best practise" around digitising photos and images? What file format is used? What scanning equipment? What's the standard resolution/DPI used?

breakall 11y ago
Not sure I can advise on the best practice, but I know how NOT to do it: my buddy just told me that a family member spent untold hours digitizing decades of family photos and documents... all at a resolution of 1024x768. headdesk
colinramsay 11y ago
Replying to myself: I found this document which lays out how archive.org do it. https://archive.org/details/ProcessDocument https://archive.org/details/ProcessDocument