4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.