4 ms·

An impressive collection to be sure. Slightly hyperbolical, the British Pathé archive puts it thusly: "This archive is a treasure trove unrivalled in historic

by hf 12y ago

An impressive collection to be sure. Slightly hyperbolical, the British Pathé archive puts it thusly: "This archive is a treasure trove unrivalled in historical and cultural significance that should never be forgotten."[0] However, I am left wondering why "[u]ploading the films to YouTube seemed like the best way to make sure of that." Perhaps fittingly, there's no clear indication which licence, if any, is applicable. What could've possibly impeded a parallel upload to the Internet Archive? [0] https://britishpathe.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/british-pathe-releases-85000-films-on-youtube/ https://britishpathe.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/british-pathe-...

pessimizer 12y ago
It's rivalled by http://blog.flickr.net/en/2013/12/16/welcome-the-british-library-to-the-commons/ http://blog.flickr.net/en/2013/12/16/welcome-the-british-lib... And the same argument applies - why flickr? Or at least, why only flickr? Executives not willing to give up control is the answer. It's difficult for people who generally make a living from renting access to the public to imagine releasing something in a way that they couldn't revoke later. It's a major break from that possessive thinking to even release the stuff to a third party rather than commission some monstrous UI for their own site. If you want it in the public domain, give it to archive.org or make torrents. The public will do the uploading to youtube and flickr.
- timthorn 12y ago
  The British Library doesn't rent its collections - it isn't a profit making body.
  - greglindahl 12y ago
    The British Library charges extra if you want to reprint or republish pages from their out-of-copyright books and manuscripts. They also assert new copyrights when they photograph or microfilm things.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - contingencies 12y ago
      Greg is right. I am writing a book on the history of the southwest corner of modern China and saw an exhibition in the British Museum of British Library held historical copperplate prints produced in France for a Chinese emperor in the Ming Dynasty of his campaigns in the area (eg. the spectacular tropical/karst landscape pacification of Annam, or modern day north Vietnam). There are about 5 of these things I'm interested in, and the bastards wanted ~500GBP per image to photograph them for me for research purposes, with an explicitly threatening legal statement that this would grant no republishing rights. I mean, come on! Talk about holding the world's heritage hostage!
      - contingencies 12y ago
        PS. I believe they obtained the pieces by invading Beijing... on the then Qing dynasty government's ever-so-serious provocation of refusing to issue free trading rights to foreign nations, in England's case mostly to distribute vast quantities of cut-rate opium produced in slave-like conditions by its Indian subjects to the Chinese population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  For images of historical significance, the Wikimedia Commons is a good place too. Germany's Bundesarchiv has a lot of images there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv
eponeponepon 12y ago
I don't know how much hyperbole there is in that statement, really - it's a humungous pile of material, and even if the licensing terms aren't totally clear, it's still available for anyone to watch - and moreover, on Youtube, it's available to your grandparents, your children, your technophobe cousin - anyone who owns a smartphone and has successfully watched videos of cats falling over. Tucking it away on archive.org might have been more palatable to the likes of us, but none of the above would ever be likely to stumble across it there. [edit: my point is, yes, it would ideally have been put in both places - but if they're only going to put it in one place, I'm happier that it's Youtube than I would have been were it archive.org]
- aw3c2 12y ago
  > on Youtube, it's available to your grandparents, your children, your technophobe cousin Youtube is not an archival website! > anyone who owns a smartphone and has successfully watched videos of cats falling over Youtube enables country-specific censorship and let's the media industry arbritrarily block content. Youtube is a commercial, for-profit. It is not a company I would ever consider for archival purposes. For maximum publicity it is the logical choice though.
  - jonnybgood 12y ago
    Pathe has their own archive which they are making available to the public using the most accessible method. Why would they upload their archive to another archive?
    - bigbugbag 12y ago
      to avoid losing everything if their archive is destroyed. It happened to a musician whose studio got destroyed by fire and he got most of his work back from archive.org it's called offsite backup of some sort and it is really smart to do. Providing you want to share its content with the world, archive.org is a good place to mirror your archive.
      - 12y ago
devindotcom 12y ago
The very nature of archive suggests they will be filed away and forgotten by most — just as much of archive.org's content already is. I personally love it but if you want people to engage with your content, that is not the place to put it. It's like the stacks versus a window display for books — either way they're accessible, but one is for keeping and the other for exposing. Edit: I hasten to add that a parallel upload would be a great idea, and you should suggest it to Mediakraft, the company handling the material. Their work is ongoing and an archive.org page would be a highly appropriate addition.
- dublinben 12y ago
  If they wanted people to engage with their content, they would have licensed it freely. They're just using this as free advertising for their paid licensing project.
- dalek2point3 12y ago
  Not true. My research suggests that once it has been archives, provided that copyright is not an issue, the material will be reused in useful ways. see: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/mit-economist-heres-how-copyright-laws-impoverish-wikipedia/259970/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/mit-ec...
dalek2point3 12y ago
Actually, they dont really need to upload to archive.org to make it reusable. Youtube has the option to place this material under a liberal CC license. The least they can do is change the license so that this material is then free for reuse.

by hf 12y ago

pessimizer 12y ago

It's rivalled by http://blog.flickr.net/en/2013/12/16/welcome-the-british-library-to-the-commons/ http://blog.flickr.net/en/2013/12/16/welcome-the-british-lib... And the same argument applies - why flickr? Or at least, why only flickr? Executives not willing to give up control is the answer. It's difficult for people who generally make a living from renting access to the public to imagine releasing something in a way that they couldn't revoke later. It's a major break from that possessive thinking to even release the stuff to a third party rather than commission some monstrous UI for their own site. If you want it in the public domain, give it to archive.org or make torrents. The public will do the uploading to youtube and flickr.

timthorn 12y ago
The British Library doesn't rent its collections - it isn't a profit making body.
- greglindahl 12y ago
  The British Library charges extra if you want to reprint or republish pages from their out-of-copyright books and manuscripts. They also assert new copyrights when they photograph or microfilm things.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - contingencies 12y ago
    Greg is right. I am writing a book on the history of the southwest corner of modern China and saw an exhibition in the British Museum of British Library held historical copperplate prints produced in France for a Chinese emperor in the Ming Dynasty of his campaigns in the area (eg. the spectacular tropical/karst landscape pacification of Annam, or modern day north Vietnam). There are about 5 of these things I'm interested in, and the bastards wanted ~500GBP per image to photograph them for me for research purposes, with an explicitly threatening legal statement that this would grant no republishing rights. I mean, come on! Talk about holding the world's heritage hostage!
    - contingencies 12y ago
      PS. I believe they obtained the pieces by invading Beijing... on the then Qing dynasty government's ever-so-serious provocation of refusing to issue free trading rights to foreign nations, in England's case mostly to distribute vast quantities of cut-rate opium produced in slave-like conditions by its Indian subjects to the Chinese population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
For images of historical significance, the Wikimedia Commons is a good place too. Germany's Bundesarchiv has a lot of images there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv

eponeponepon 12y ago

I don't know how much hyperbole there is in that statement, really - it's a humungous pile of material, and even if the licensing terms aren't totally clear, it's still available for anyone to watch - and moreover, on Youtube, it's available to your grandparents, your children, your technophobe cousin - anyone who owns a smartphone and has successfully watched videos of cats falling over. Tucking it away on archive.org might have been more palatable to the likes of us, but none of the above would ever be likely to stumble across it there. [edit: my point is, yes, it would ideally have been put in both places - but if they're only going to put it in one place, I'm happier that it's Youtube than I would have been were it archive.org]

aw3c2 12y ago
> on Youtube, it's available to your grandparents, your children, your technophobe cousin Youtube is not an archival website! > anyone who owns a smartphone and has successfully watched videos of cats falling over Youtube enables country-specific censorship and let's the media industry arbritrarily block content. Youtube is a commercial, for-profit. It is not a company I would ever consider for archival purposes. For maximum publicity it is the logical choice though.
- jonnybgood 12y ago
  Pathe has their own archive which they are making available to the public using the most accessible method. Why would they upload their archive to another archive?
  - bigbugbag 12y ago
    to avoid losing everything if their archive is destroyed. It happened to a musician whose studio got destroyed by fire and he got most of his work back from archive.org it's called offsite backup of some sort and it is really smart to do. Providing you want to share its content with the world, archive.org is a good place to mirror your archive.
    - 12y ago

devindotcom 12y ago

The very nature of archive suggests they will be filed away and forgotten by most — just as much of archive.org's content already is. I personally love it but if you want people to engage with your content, that is not the place to put it. It's like the stacks versus a window display for books — either way they're accessible, but one is for keeping and the other for exposing. Edit: I hasten to add that a parallel upload would be a great idea, and you should suggest it to Mediakraft, the company handling the material. Their work is ongoing and an archive.org page would be a highly appropriate addition.

dublinben 12y ago
If they wanted people to engage with their content, they would have licensed it freely. They're just using this as free advertising for their paid licensing project.
dalek2point3 12y ago
Not true. My research suggests that once it has been archives, provided that copyright is not an issue, the material will be reused in useful ways. see: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/mit-economist-heres-how-copyright-laws-impoverish-wikipedia/259970/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/mit-ec...

dalek2point3 12y ago

Actually, they dont really need to upload to archive.org to make it reusable. Youtube has the option to place this material under a liberal CC license. The least they can do is change the license so that this material is then free for reuse.