8 ms·

Nature photographer John Fielder donates life’s work to public domain

287 points by Santosh83 4y ago

crackpot 4y ago
What an inspiring thing to do!
helsinkiandrew 4y ago
> Donated by Fielder in January 2023, in the coming months it will be digitized and cataloged by History Colorado to make it easily accessible and searchable by the public. And people/companies can download and use them as they wish? I don't want to be cynical (but this is HN) I hope we're not back here in 6 months, discussing how History Colorado has added some license, conditions etc. I haven't been to Colorado - but these photographs make me want to visit.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Obligatory IANAL. History Colorado is a "501(c)(3) charitable organization and an agency of the State of Colorado under the Department of Higher Education"[1]. Copyright laws exist both at the federal and state levels. Federal copyright law states "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties ... are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in the public domain."[2] This does not necessarily apply to state government employees.[3] Colorado's state copyright laws, if any, are seemingly impossible to find with cursory Google-fu. [1]: https://www.historycolorado.org/about https://www.historycolorado.org/about [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_subnational_governments_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_s...
  - bawolff 4y ago
    [Ianal] Additionally, in the USA (but not all other places), digitizing a 2D piece of artwork does not add copyright to it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel.... There is a summary of different country laws at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_p...
- Eleison23 4y ago
  History Colorado won't have legal standing to add licensing or conditions to their use. They will have the technical ability to control initial distribution. So we can assume he's going to upload highest-resolution originals to their archives. HC may need to delay access to them, or they may only offer downscaled copies for download initially. They could watermark or alter them in some way before distribution: since being in the public domain really means no restrictions on use or modifications, they can do anything they want upstream. I mean, they probably won't do watermarking, because I don't see it on other images in the "Collection" on the official website. We'll see if EXIF data is processed in any way. Or which formats will be distributed: you could hope for something lossless, right? But a public domain dedication, properly done, is irrevocable. Fielder may choose to exempt certain works from dedication, for example if a photograph is monetized already, or used by a popular news agency, etc. But it looks like HC will have 5,000 out of 200,000 images, and will shortly release it for public consumption on the same searchable website. https://www.historycolorado.org/press-release/2023/01/23/colorados-premier-nature-photographer-donates-lifes-work-people-colorado https://www.historycolorado.org/press-release/2023/01/23/col...
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    You're shadow-banned since https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33846088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33846088
- Freak_NL 4y ago
  > And people/companies can download and use them as they wish? Why would this be a bad thing? Is there something specific about photos of Colorado scenery that would result in a negative outcome? Because there are already loads of public domain photos out there of natural scenery (the noteworthiness here is that such a comprehensive topical collection is integrally placed in the public domain).
  - hnarn 4y ago
    The point of the comment was the complete opposite: that this is a good thing but that the custodians of this digitization may think they have a right to apply a license restricting usage.
politelemon 4y ago
This is a nice thing to do, and at the same time I'm saddened that parasites like Adobe and Getty can start profiting off these as they have in the past. Legally parasitical. Also a question. How could I, a nobody, 'donate' my photography to public domain? An organization wouldn't give a hoot about me, so are there sites that can 'take' photos and host them as public domain?
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Obligatory IANAL. You put your works into the Public Domain by explicitly forfeiting or waiving exclusive intellectual property rights[1]. TL;DR: A Public Domain work is a work to which nobody holds nor asserts copyright. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Though you're probably better using one of the existing "public domain licenses" as opposed to inventing your own disclaimer. There's CC0 (there's some problematic patent language but that's mostly only a concern with software) and MIT-0. This still doesn't make everything necessarily public domain everywhere in the world but it's the best you can do.
- hannob 4y ago
  > How could I, a nobody, 'donate' my photography to public domain? An organization wouldn't give a hoot about me, so are there sites that can 'take' photos and host them as public domain? Wikimedia Commons, upload them with CC0 as the license. (CC0 is basically public domain, just with some legal language that makes it work in other countries than the US where public domain as a legal concept does not exist.)
  - detaro 4y ago
    or archive.org I forget what the current terms are, but Flickr also had tons of public domain/CC0/CC-licensed images and didnt count them against quota afaik
martyvis 4y ago
"The nature photographer prides himself on having traveled to each of Colorado’s 104,984 square miles over the past 40 years" While I think the only time I've been on Colorado ground was a transfer at Denver airport, I understand it has pretty rugged geography. Is that statement even remotely possible to be true?
- Santosh83 4y ago
  Yes why not, unless an entire square mile of land was completely inaccessible, setting foot on an inch of it anywhere makes his claim true. According to the article, he was an expert with printed maps, so I'm inclined to believe he accurately mapped his own travels.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Visited may also include seen or laid eyes upon every square mile. This is a photographer. I visited the Eiffel tower as a kid. I didn't go inside.
    - jebarker 4y ago
      I think he probably means he’s seen every square mile. I live in CO and run ultramarathons in the mountains and backcountry here. There are squares miles that are almost certainly inaccessible even on foot due to terrain, grade or property rights.
      - TheCondor 4y ago
        I’m a giant fan of John and his work, but I tend to agree. DIA has 50+ square miles and it’s basically private. Malone and the Kronkes own some big chunks of land, not sure if they leave them open. There are some places on the western slope, north central to north western Colorado and the in the south east where it could be dry challenging to get to. With forestry support, I think it is possible but not easy. There are probably multiple square miles sections of BLM range in the north east without any real access roads; nothing prevents you from getting there but it’d be a long hike or horseback/atv ride with maybe not a lot of photographic targets. It sounds like hyperbole, but John is a Colorado legend and if he says it, then I think it is true or shockingly close to being true. He has tons of photographic evidence of being in a lot of fairly challenging to visit places.
abledon 4y ago
The Diffusion Algorithms Roar in Hungry Anticipation!
jl6 4y ago
Should be a great source of high quality images for Wikipedia articles.
ThinkBeat 4y ago
Photos should become available sometimes in the spring. https://www.johnfielder.com/ https://www.johnfielder.com/ It also gives him a museum that will often feature some of his work as part of their exhibits.
Mali- 4y ago
God, I'd donate away that lot too...
Robadob 4y ago
It's a real shame there's not a built in way to get notified in 6 months to check this stuff out. Guess I'll add it to my calendar.
jahlove 4y ago
> Fielder’s photography has influenced policy that protects Colorado lands including Congress’ Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993, which created 36 federally protected Wilderness areas that amount to 660,000 acres.
ctoth 4y ago
Nominative Determinism strikes again!
muyuu 4y ago
that's my wallpapers sorted

287 points by Santosh83 4y ago

What an inspiring thing to do!

> Donated by Fielder in January 2023, in the coming months it will be digitized and cataloged by History Colorado to make it easily accessible and searchable by the public. And people/companies can download and use them as they wish? I don't want to be cynical (but this is HN) I hope we're not back here in 6 months, discussing how History Colorado has added some license, conditions etc. I haven't been to Colorado - but these photographs make me want to visit.

Dalewyn 4y ago
Obligatory IANAL. History Colorado is a "501(c)(3) charitable organization and an agency of the State of Colorado under the Department of Higher Education"[1]. Copyright laws exist both at the federal and state levels. Federal copyright law states "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties ... are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in the public domain."[2] This does not necessarily apply to state government employees.[3] Colorado's state copyright laws, if any, are seemingly impossible to find with cursory Google-fu. [1]: https://www.historycolorado.org/about https://www.historycolorado.org/about [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_subnational_governments_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_s...
- bawolff 4y ago
  [Ianal] Additionally, in the USA (but not all other places), digitizing a 2D piece of artwork does not add copyright to it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel.... There is a summary of different country laws at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_p...
Eleison23 4y ago
History Colorado won't have legal standing to add licensing or conditions to their use. They will have the technical ability to control initial distribution. So we can assume he's going to upload highest-resolution originals to their archives. HC may need to delay access to them, or they may only offer downscaled copies for download initially. They could watermark or alter them in some way before distribution: since being in the public domain really means no restrictions on use or modifications, they can do anything they want upstream. I mean, they probably won't do watermarking, because I don't see it on other images in the "Collection" on the official website. We'll see if EXIF data is processed in any way. Or which formats will be distributed: you could hope for something lossless, right? But a public domain dedication, properly done, is irrevocable. Fielder may choose to exempt certain works from dedication, for example if a photograph is monetized already, or used by a popular news agency, etc. But it looks like HC will have 5,000 out of 200,000 images, and will shortly release it for public consumption on the same searchable website. https://www.historycolorado.org/press-release/2023/01/23/colorados-premier-nature-photographer-donates-lifes-work-people-colorado https://www.historycolorado.org/press-release/2023/01/23/col...
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  You're shadow-banned since https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33846088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33846088
Freak_NL 4y ago
> And people/companies can download and use them as they wish? Why would this be a bad thing? Is there something specific about photos of Colorado scenery that would result in a negative outcome? Because there are already loads of public domain photos out there of natural scenery (the noteworthiness here is that such a comprehensive topical collection is integrally placed in the public domain).
- hnarn 4y ago
  The point of the comment was the complete opposite: that this is a good thing but that the custodians of this digitization may think they have a right to apply a license restricting usage.

politelemon 4y ago

This is a nice thing to do, and at the same time I'm saddened that parasites like Adobe and Getty can start profiting off these as they have in the past. Legally parasitical. Also a question. How could I, a nobody, 'donate' my photography to public domain? An organization wouldn't give a hoot about me, so are there sites that can 'take' photos and host them as public domain?

Dalewyn 4y ago
Obligatory IANAL. You put your works into the Public Domain by explicitly forfeiting or waiving exclusive intellectual property rights[1]. TL;DR: A Public Domain work is a work to which nobody holds nor asserts copyright. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
- ghaff 4y ago
  Though you're probably better using one of the existing "public domain licenses" as opposed to inventing your own disclaimer. There's CC0 (there's some problematic patent language but that's mostly only a concern with software) and MIT-0. This still doesn't make everything necessarily public domain everywhere in the world but it's the best you can do.
hannob 4y ago
> How could I, a nobody, 'donate' my photography to public domain? An organization wouldn't give a hoot about me, so are there sites that can 'take' photos and host them as public domain? Wikimedia Commons, upload them with CC0 as the license. (CC0 is basically public domain, just with some legal language that makes it work in other countries than the US where public domain as a legal concept does not exist.)
- detaro 4y ago
  or archive.org I forget what the current terms are, but Flickr also had tons of public domain/CC0/CC-licensed images and didnt count them against quota afaik

martyvis 4y ago

"The nature photographer prides himself on having traveled to each of Colorado’s 104,984 square miles over the past 40 years" While I think the only time I've been on Colorado ground was a transfer at Denver airport, I understand it has pretty rugged geography. Is that statement even remotely possible to be true?

Santosh83 4y ago
Yes why not, unless an entire square mile of land was completely inaccessible, setting foot on an inch of it anywhere makes his claim true. According to the article, he was an expert with printed maps, so I'm inclined to believe he accurately mapped his own travels.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Visited may also include seen or laid eyes upon every square mile. This is a photographer. I visited the Eiffel tower as a kid. I didn't go inside.
  - jebarker 4y ago
    I think he probably means he’s seen every square mile. I live in CO and run ultramarathons in the mountains and backcountry here. There are squares miles that are almost certainly inaccessible even on foot due to terrain, grade or property rights.
    - TheCondor 4y ago
      I’m a giant fan of John and his work, but I tend to agree. DIA has 50+ square miles and it’s basically private. Malone and the Kronkes own some big chunks of land, not sure if they leave them open. There are some places on the western slope, north central to north western Colorado and the in the south east where it could be dry challenging to get to. With forestry support, I think it is possible but not easy. There are probably multiple square miles sections of BLM range in the north east without any real access roads; nothing prevents you from getting there but it’d be a long hike or horseback/atv ride with maybe not a lot of photographic targets. It sounds like hyperbole, but John is a Colorado legend and if he says it, then I think it is true or shockingly close to being true. He has tons of photographic evidence of being in a lot of fairly challenging to visit places.

abledon 4y ago

The Diffusion Algorithms Roar in Hungry Anticipation!

jl6 4y ago

Should be a great source of high quality images for Wikipedia articles.

ThinkBeat 4y ago

Photos should become available sometimes in the spring. https://www.johnfielder.com/ https://www.johnfielder.com/ It also gives him a museum that will often feature some of his work as part of their exhibits.

Mali- 4y ago

God, I'd donate away that lot too...

Robadob 4y ago

It's a real shame there's not a built in way to get notified in 6 months to check this stuff out. Guess I'll add it to my calendar.

jahlove 4y ago

> Fielder’s photography has influenced policy that protects Colorado lands including Congress’ Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993, which created 36 federally protected Wilderness areas that amount to 660,000 acres.

ctoth 4y ago

Nominative Determinism strikes again!

muyuu 4y ago

that's my wallpapers sorted