3 ms·

The argument here, I think, is that in 10, 20, 30 years, the site used to host the original PD works will either go offline or otherwise be buried in search res

by judge2020 4y ago

The argument here, I think, is that in 10, 20, 30 years, the site used to host the original PD works will either go offline or otherwise be buried in search results, when Getty et al stay #1 in the search results and charge for the PD work. This is why I largely consider releasing anything under the Public Domain to be a PR stunt; you can achieve the same results by just granting a more permissive license that says “don’t resell the work itself, but you may use it as part of any other work for any reason or for personal use”

Infernal 4y ago
> The argument here, I think, is that in 10, 20, 30 years, the site used to host the original PD works will either go offline or otherwise be buried in search results, when Getty et al stay #1 in the search results and charge for the PD work Sounds like Getty et al would be providing a valuable service in that case.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean an unspecified someone is required to bear the costs of hosting it and providing access with a good user experience, metadata, search, etc. Fortunately, in many cases, organizations like the (in the US) the Library of Congress and non-profits like the Internet Archive do. But no one is required to do so. (Aside from some legal mandates in the case of the LoC.)
- type0 4y ago
  > Sounds like Getty et al would be providing a valuable service What valuable service? they are extortionists - https://onehourprofessor.com/getty-images-demand-letter-getty-images-lawsuit/ https://onehourprofessor.com/getty-images-demand-letter-gett...
  - Infernal 4y ago
    Well, in the posed scenario, when the free option for acquiring the work is no longer available, but the paid option is still available - the service is making the work available at all when it otherwise wouldn't be.
ghaff 4y ago
So you're basically arguing against anything being in the public domain ever because someone other than the original creator might make money off of it--even if the alternative is for it not to be available at all. And what does reselling the work itself mean? If I sell a picture book of Colorado that combines these photos with some maps and long captions, is that reselling the work? How about selling prints? That's a value-add service.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  It seems you're missing a more interesting discussion point. For all of its faults, one of the advantages conveyed by private property ownership is in creating an interest in that property. The commons, whether real property or virtual as in the case of intellectual works, has no such protections, and there are relatively few institutions which seek to protect and defend it. In cultural space we do have works which have been passed down through the ages, though many of those come through particularly long-lived institutions, most especially religious (the canonical texts of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, the Greek and Roman mythologies, etc.), but also educational (often tightly coupled with religious institutions), and more recently scientific organisations (again, often coupled with educational institutions, both religious and secular). There are the traditions of libraries and museums as well. And there are many instances in which cultural commons have been appropriated by commercial interests, the case of Disney being particularly prominent. I think that raising the question of what institutions might serve to curate, shepherd, and defend common works, how those might be structured and organised, and what models serve as potential examples and instances, makes for a rather more compelling conversation. As well as a rather fairer read of the concern voiced.

Infernal 4y ago

> The argument here, I think, is that in 10, 20, 30 years, the site used to host the original PD works will either go offline or otherwise be buried in search results, when Getty et al stay #1 in the search results and charge for the PD work Sounds like Getty et al would be providing a valuable service in that case.

ghaff 4y ago
Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean an unspecified someone is required to bear the costs of hosting it and providing access with a good user experience, metadata, search, etc. Fortunately, in many cases, organizations like the (in the US) the Library of Congress and non-profits like the Internet Archive do. But no one is required to do so. (Aside from some legal mandates in the case of the LoC.)
type0 4y ago
> Sounds like Getty et al would be providing a valuable service What valuable service? they are extortionists - https://onehourprofessor.com/getty-images-demand-letter-getty-images-lawsuit/ https://onehourprofessor.com/getty-images-demand-letter-gett...
- Infernal 4y ago
  Well, in the posed scenario, when the free option for acquiring the work is no longer available, but the paid option is still available - the service is making the work available at all when it otherwise wouldn't be.

ghaff 4y ago

So you're basically arguing against anything being in the public domain ever because someone other than the original creator might make money off of it--even if the alternative is for it not to be available at all. And what does reselling the work itself mean? If I sell a picture book of Colorado that combines these photos with some maps and long captions, is that reselling the work? How about selling prints? That's a value-add service.

dredmorbius 4y ago
It seems you're missing a more interesting discussion point. For all of its faults, one of the advantages conveyed by private property ownership is in creating an interest in that property. The commons, whether real property or virtual as in the case of intellectual works, has no such protections, and there are relatively few institutions which seek to protect and defend it. In cultural space we do have works which have been passed down through the ages, though many of those come through particularly long-lived institutions, most especially religious (the canonical texts of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, the Greek and Roman mythologies, etc.), but also educational (often tightly coupled with religious institutions), and more recently scientific organisations (again, often coupled with educational institutions, both religious and secular). There are the traditions of libraries and museums as well. And there are many instances in which cultural commons have been appropriated by commercial interests, the case of Disney being particularly prominent. I think that raising the question of what institutions might serve to curate, shepherd, and defend common works, how those might be structured and organised, and what models serve as potential examples and instances, makes for a rather more compelling conversation. As well as a rather fairer read of the concern voiced.