[MCN-L] Re image 'theft'

[Proctor, Nancy]

Thanks to Matt Morgan for raising the question of who has actually lost
revenues from putting images, even high quality ones, online. I share his
skepticism that it's actually as big a problem as we fear. I suspect that it
will take less effort and fewer resources to deal with the small number of
thefts that will arise than all the wringing of hands and hiring of lawyers
for pre-emptive action that we currently engage in.

We're discussing business models for the Smithsonian at the moment, so I
added Matt's comments at this link:

http://smithsonian-webstrategy.wikispaces.com/message/view/Business+Models+W
orkshop+Real-Time+Notes/11773461

This is a public wiki, so you're all welcome to participate in the
conversation!

Nancy

Nancy Proctor
Head of New Media Initiatives
Smithsonian American Art Museum
MRC 970 PO Box 37012
Washington DC 20013-7012
USA

t: +1-202-633-8439
c: +1-301-642-6257
f: +1-202-633-8455

http://www.americanart.si.edu
http://eyelevel.si.edu/

On 5/5/09 3:00 PM, "mcn-l-request at mcn.edu"  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu on behalf of Eric Johnson
> Sent: Tue 5/5/2009 11:55 AM
> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
>  
> Matt raises an interesting point: has anybody ever had any problems with
> people "lifting" high-quality images of your collection without seeking
> permission and making money with them (posters, t-shirts, etc.)?
> 
> The only thing I can think of off-hand is more in the vein of taking
> print-quality images and using them in books without permission.  But
> then again, I'm not familiar with any example of that actually
> happening; it's just a worry passed down from higher-ups.
> 
> But I'm curious about any specific examples of such unauthorized
> reproduction that anybody might have.
> 
> --E.
> 
> Eric D. M. Johnson
> Web Services Librarian
> Jefferson Library, Monticello
> P.O. Box 316
> Charlottesville, VA 22902
> Phone: (434) 984-7540 | Fax: (434) 984-7546
> http://www.monticello.org/library/
> ejohnson at monticello.org
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Morgan, Matt [mailto:matt.morgan at metmuseum.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM
> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
> 
> I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing, but
> don't, purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like crazy
> here so it's a good day to sit in my office and rant about one of my
> bugbears a little bit.
> 
> We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a significant,
> commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object images. It just isn't
> done--there is no business model in stealing images. Getting images of
> more than 1000px (from Flickr, for example) of our objects is a trivial
> matter, so it cannot be that increasing image sizes on our own websites
> will make this problem materialize.
> 
> I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all face.
> I just think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start
> letting people enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or blowing
> them up until they're fuzzy.
> 
> Thanks,
> Matt
> 
> 

[MCN-L] Image Sizes

[Nik Honeysett]

This reminds me of a classic example in the music industry in the early
90's. Blue Note Record's legal team came across a 12" single called "The
Band Played the Boogie" featuring an illegal sampling of Grant Green's
"Sookie Sookie", enjoying a huge underground following. Rather than
pursue a suit, Blue Note hired the group and gave them access to their
full back catalogue. The resulting release was Blue Note's first
platinum-selling album (Us3 - Hand on the Torch).
 
So, put your images out there, wait for someone to figure out how to
make money from them, then hire them.
 
(wish me luck with getting that through our general counsel).
 
-nik

>>> "Stanley Smith"  5/5/2009 1:20 PM >>>

If you think that your images are not out there, you are mistaken.  At
the Getty we have taken pains to manage how our images migrate from
our
walls, but a quick Google image search of ?Irises? and ?Van Gogh? will
yield hundreds of hits (the most hilarious of which is a line of
dog-themed ceramic plates with the painting serving as background to
visages of various breeds).  This is not too concerning, as the
artwork
itself is in the public domain, and Bridgeman v. Corel says that we
can?t claim photographic copyright?so all?s fair in love and war. 

Speaking of Bridgeman, though, I recently tried to order a print of
the
same painting from Bridgeman?s website. I am conducting research for a
possible print-on-demand service at the Getty --(yes Will, if there is
money to be made we should be the ones making it!) -- I wanted to see
what other commercial ventures were doing with our images?mostly a
quality survey.  I foolish used my Getty mailing address when placing
the order (a 20 x 24 archival inkjet print on fine-art paper for about
$70).  Two days later I got an email from Bridgeman stating: 

?We regret to inform you that your order of 'Irises,1889' (supplier 
code BAL40070) cannot be processed due to the transparency being  
unsuitable for reproduction. The Bridgeman Art Library have advised 
that the quality of this particular print would be compromised by 
enlarging it beyond the image size and as a result we have been 
forced
to cancel and refund your order. The image will be removed from our
site
within the next couple of days to avoid any future  disappointment.

Even Bridgeman was nervous about copyright issues!  Irises was removed
from their website the next day.  There is really no possible way to
prevent your images from getting out in the world.  Those CD?s or
transparencies that you have sent for scholar requests or publications
over the years are still out there, and can fall into any number of
hands.  Current imaging software is very good at ?rezing? up small
image
image files into ones that can be used for print.  Current stitching
software can easily reconstruct Zoomify panes into a very high
resolution image.  Even if you disable the ability to right-click an
image for download, nothing can stop someone from using a screen grab.

The best we can do, I think, is to make sure that recipients of our
images know exactly what their usage rights are.  But we should not be
surprised when some people ignore our directives. The PLUS coalition
has
a great product that helps track and enforce image rights, and they
are
developing a profile that is specific to museums. 

A couple of years ago I was exploring other ways to track our images
in
the ?cloud?.  As a test, I gave a company called Idee a set of 400
jpegs
of paintings from our collection.  They had developed software that
crawls the web looking for images based not on text data, but on the
images themselves.  The results of this test were astonishing?they had
hundreds of hits.  Ultimately it was not technology that we were
willing
to adopt?one reason was who has time to sent hundreds of
cease-and-desist letters to obscure websites, some of which may have
had
the images legitimately?


Stanley Smith
Manager, Imaging Services
J. Paul Getty Museum
1200 Getty Center Drive,  Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1687
(310) 440-7286
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu 

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l 

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/

[MCN-L] Re image 'theft'

[Kenneth Hamma]

Regardless the size of the imagined revenue loss, the notion of  
'theft' may not be entirely appropriate here, speaking only of payment  
for IP licensing not payment for services or product.  Remember that  
the institutions mentioned so far operate as public charities -  
receiving a tax benefit but also encumbered with certain public- 
benefit responsibilities as a result.  And leaving aside works still  
under copyright, for which we all have well known obligations, as well  
as works that maintain vital roles in the communities in which they  
were created, these collections consist of natural specimens or  
creative works now in the public domain.  Who in this scenario would  
be thieving from whom?

For these works, the assertion of copyright in visual surrogates and  
metadata is not a legal decision (so don't start with lawyers) but a  
business decision that has on more than one occasion been described  
purely as an effort to maintain monopoly control.  Is it possible to  
square this with public charities managing public domain collections?

ken


Kenneth Hamma

+1 310 270 8008
khamma at me.com

368 Patel Place
Palm Springs CA 92264

On May 5, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Proctor, Nancy wrote:

> Thanks to Matt Morgan for raising the question of who has actually  
> lost
> revenues from putting images, even high quality ones, online. I  
> share his
> skepticism that it's actually as big a problem as we fear. I suspect  
> that it
> will take less effort and fewer resources to deal with the small  
> number of
> thefts that will arise than all the wringing of hands and hiring of  
> lawyers
> for pre-emptive action that we currently engage in.
>
> We're discussing business models for the Smithsonian at the moment,  
> so I
> added Matt's comments at this link:
>
> http://smithsonian-webstrategy.wikispaces.com/message/view/Business+Models+W
> orkshop+Real-Time+Notes/11773461
>
> This is a public wiki, so you're all welcome to participate in the
> conversation!
>
> Nancy
>
> Nancy Proctor
> Head of New Media Initiatives
> Smithsonian American Art Museum
> MRC 970 PO Box 37012
> Washington DC 20013-7012
> USA
>
> t: +1-202-633-8439
> c: +1-301-642-6257
> f: +1-202-633-8455
>
> http://www.americanart.si.edu
> http://eyelevel.si.edu/
>
> On 5/5/09 3:00 PM, "mcn-l-request at mcn.edu"   
> wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu on behalf of Eric Johnson
>> Sent: Tue 5/5/2009 11:55 AM
>> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
>> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
>>
>> Matt raises an interesting point: has anybody ever had any problems  
>> with
>> people "lifting" high-quality images of your collection without  
>> seeking
>> permission and making money with them (posters, t-shirts, etc.)?
>>
>> The only thing I can think of off-hand is more in the vein of taking
>> print-quality images and using them in books without permission.  But
>> then again, I'm not familiar with any example of that actually
>> happening; it's just a worry passed down from higher-ups.
>>
>> But I'm curious about any specific examples of such unauthorized
>> reproduction that anybody might have.
>>
>> --E.
>>
>> Eric D. M. Johnson
>> Web Services Librarian
>> Jefferson Library, Monticello
>> P.O. Box 316
>> Charlottesville, VA 22902
>> Phone: (434) 984-7540 | Fax: (434) 984-7546
>> http://www.monticello.org/library/
>> ejohnson at monticello.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Morgan, Matt [mailto:matt.morgan at metmuseum.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM
>> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
>> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
>>
>> I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing,  
>> but
>> don't, purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like  
>> crazy
>> here so it's a good day to sit in my office and rant about one of my
>> bugbears a little bit.
>>
>> We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a  
>> significant,
>> commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object images. It just  
>> isn't
>> done--there is no business model in stealing images. Getting images  
>> of
>> more than 1000px (from Flickr, for example) of our objects is a  
>> trivial
>> matter, so it cannot be that increasing image sizes on our own  
>> websites
>> will make this problem materialize.
>>
>> I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all  
>> face.
>> I just think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start
>> letting people enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or  
>> blowing
>> them up until they're fuzzy.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum  
> Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu)
>
> To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu
>
> To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
> http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
>
> The MCN-L archives can be found at:
>

[MCN-L] Image Sizes

[Stanley Smith]

If you think that your images are not out there, you are mistaken.  At
the Getty we have taken pains to manage how our images migrate from our
walls, but a quick Google image search of ?Irises? and ?Van Gogh? will
yield hundreds of hits (the most hilarious of which is a line of
dog-themed ceramic plates with the painting serving as background to
visages of various breeds).  This is not too concerning, as the artwork
itself is in the public domain, and Bridgeman v. Corel says that we
can?t claim photographic copyright?so all?s fair in love and war. 
 
Speaking of Bridgeman, though, I recently tried to order a print of the
same painting from Bridgeman?s website. I am conducting research for a
possible print-on-demand service at the Getty --(yes Will, if there is
money to be made we should be the ones making it!) -- I wanted to see
what other commercial ventures were doing with our images?mostly a
quality survey.  I foolish used my Getty mailing address when placing
the order (a 20 x 24 archival inkjet print on fine-art paper for about
$70).  Two days later I got an email from Bridgeman stating: 
 
?We regret to inform you that your order of 'Irises,1889' (supplier 
code BAL40070) cannot be processed due to the transparency being  
unsuitable for reproduction. The Bridgeman Art Library have advised 
that the quality of this particular print would be compromised by 
enlarging it beyond the image size and as a result we have been  forced
to cancel and refund your order. The image will be removed from our site
within the next couple of days to avoid any future  disappointment.
 
Even Bridgeman was nervous about copyright issues!  Irises was removed
from their website the next day.  There is really no possible way to
prevent your images from getting out in the world.  Those CD?s or
transparencies that you have sent for scholar requests or publications
over the years are still out there, and can fall into any number of
hands.  Current imaging software is very good at ?rezing? up small image
image files into ones that can be used for print.  Current stitching
software can easily reconstruct Zoomify panes into a very high
resolution image.  Even if you disable the ability to right-click an
image for download, nothing can stop someone from using a screen grab.
 
The best we can do, I think, is to make sure that recipients of our
images know exactly what their usage rights are.  But we should not be
surprised when some people ignore our directives. The PLUS coalition has
a great product that helps track and enforce image rights, and they are
developing a profile that is specific to museums. 
 
A couple of years ago I was exploring other ways to track our images in
the ?cloud?.  As a test, I gave a company called Idee a set of 400 jpegs
of paintings from our collection.  They had developed software that
crawls the web looking for images based not on text data, but on the
images themselves.  The results of this test were astonishing?they had
hundreds of hits.  Ultimately it was not technology that we were willing
to adopt?one reason was who has time to sent hundreds of
cease-and-desist letters to obscure websites, some of which may have had
the images legitimately?
 
 
 Stanley Smith
Manager, Imaging Services
J. Paul Getty Museum
1200 Getty Center Drive,  Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1687
(310) 440-7286

[MCN-L] Second Life workplace policy

[Jo Miles-Seely]

Listers,

I've been investigating the uses of Second Life, or any virtual world, 
for our Department, both as a participant and as a provider. Right now 
I'm focusing on updating our Department's "Internet Use Agreement" to 
include appropriate/inappropriate use of virtual worlds for work-related 
purposes. Do any of you have ideas of what should be included in the 
policy? Do any of you have policies that cover virtual worlds that you 
would be willing to share?

Thank you for any assistance you can provide.

Jo Miles-Seely

-- 
Jo Miles-Seely, Business Systems Analyst
Information Systems Office
Mississippi Department of Archives & History
PO Box 571
Jackson, MS 39205-0571
Telephone: 601-576-6979
Facsimile: 601-576-6975
Email: jomiles at mdah.state.ms.us

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Jeffrey Evans]

No. Those cases dealt with online media not involving us.  We were given 
entertaining examples, but nothing that I feel comfortable repeating.  Right 
now, our limits are 256pix high. (A glorified thumbnail really.)

JEFF


-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tue 5/5/2009 12:26 PM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
 
Can you share some examples of getting burned?


On 5/5/09 12:16 PM, "Jeffrey Evans"  wrote:

This has been an interesting thread to read.  Here at Princeton we enjoy the 
cover of an Office of General Counsel.  We have had more than a few meetings 
dealing with what we can and cannot put online. The question is not IF you're 
going to get burned, but WHEN.  One of our attorneys has been neck deep in 
cases just such as this, and the results are very specific as to what is usable 
pixel-size-wise.  Its a scary litigious world out there and if you're dealing 
with living artists or other intellectual property that will generate some 
revenue; make sure you're OK before posting something.

JEFF EVANS
Princeton Univ Art Museum.

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Eric Johnson
Sent: Tue 5/5/2009 11:55 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Matt raises an interesting point: has anybody ever had any problems with
people "lifting" high-quality images of your collection without seeking
permission and making money with them (posters, t-shirts, etc.)?

The only thing I can think of off-hand is more in the vein of taking
print-quality images and using them in books without permission.  But
then again, I'm not familiar with any example of that actually
happening; it's just a worry passed down from higher-ups.

But I'm curious about any specific examples of such unauthorized
reproduction that anybody might have.

--E.

Eric D. M. Johnson
Web Services Librarian
Jefferson Library, Monticello
P.O. Box 316
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (434) 984-7540 | Fax: (434) 984-7546
http://www.monticello.org/library/
ejohnson at monticello.org



-Original Message-
From: Morgan, Matt [mailto:matt.mor...@metmuseum.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing, but
don't, purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like crazy
here so it's a good day to sit in my office and rant about one of my
bugbears a little bit.

We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a significant,
commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object images. It just isn't
done--there is no business model in stealing images. Getting images of
more than 1000px (from Flickr, for example) of our objects is a trivial
matter, so it cannot be that increasing image sizes on our own websites
will make this problem materialize.

I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all face.
I just think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start
letting people enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or blowing
them up until they're fuzzy.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 11:10 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g.
Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet print
we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to
scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and
provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such as
Zoomify.

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit
"commercially viable"? Surely more than 500px.

On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Hi Matt,

The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
it, it should be us.

With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
would be a lot more difficult.

Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the
online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum
file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just
kind of a pain!

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Morgan, Matt]

Can you share some examples of getting burned?


On 5/5/09 12:16 PM, "Jeffrey Evans"  wrote:

This has been an interesting thread to read.  Here at Princeton we enjoy the 
cover of an Office of General Counsel.  We have had more than a few meetings 
dealing with what we can and cannot put online. The question is not IF you're 
going to get burned, but WHEN.  One of our attorneys has been neck deep in 
cases just such as this, and the results are very specific as to what is usable 
pixel-size-wise.  Its a scary litigious world out there and if you're dealing 
with living artists or other intellectual property that will generate some 
revenue; make sure you're OK before posting something.

JEFF EVANS
Princeton Univ Art Museum.

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Eric Johnson
Sent: Tue 5/5/2009 11:55 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Matt raises an interesting point: has anybody ever had any problems with
people "lifting" high-quality images of your collection without seeking
permission and making money with them (posters, t-shirts, etc.)?

The only thing I can think of off-hand is more in the vein of taking
print-quality images and using them in books without permission.  But
then again, I'm not familiar with any example of that actually
happening; it's just a worry passed down from higher-ups.

But I'm curious about any specific examples of such unauthorized
reproduction that anybody might have.

--E.

Eric D. M. Johnson
Web Services Librarian
Jefferson Library, Monticello
P.O. Box 316
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (434) 984-7540 | Fax: (434) 984-7546
http://www.monticello.org/library/
ejohnson at monticello.org



-Original Message-
From: Morgan, Matt [mailto:matt.mor...@metmuseum.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing, but
don't, purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like crazy
here so it's a good day to sit in my office and rant about one of my
bugbears a little bit.

We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a significant,
commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object images. It just isn't
done--there is no business model in stealing images. Getting images of
more than 1000px (from Flickr, for example) of our objects is a trivial
matter, so it cannot be that increasing image sizes on our own websites
will make this problem materialize.

I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all face.
I just think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start
letting people enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or blowing
them up until they're fuzzy.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 11:10 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g.
Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet print
we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to
scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and
provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such as
Zoomify.

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit
"commercially viable"? Surely more than 500px.

On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Hi Matt,

The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
it, it should be us.

With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
would be a lot more difficult.

Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the
online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum
file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just
kind of a pain!

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there
are a lot of good arguments for very big images online now:

1) modern browsers handle resizing well
2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as
easy for users as z

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Jeffrey Evans]

This has been an interesting thread to read.  Here at Princeton we enjoy the 
cover of an Office of General Counsel.  We have had more than a few meetings 
dealing with what we can and cannot put online. The question is not IF you're 
going to get burned, but WHEN.  One of our attorneys has been neck deep in 
cases just such as this, and the results are very specific as to what is usable 
pixel-size-wise.  Its a scary litigious world out there and if you're dealing 
with living artists or other intellectual property that will generate some 
revenue; make sure you're OK before posting something.

JEFF EVANS
Princeton Univ Art Museum.

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Eric Johnson
Sent: Tue 5/5/2009 11:55 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
 
Matt raises an interesting point: has anybody ever had any problems with
people "lifting" high-quality images of your collection without seeking
permission and making money with them (posters, t-shirts, etc.)?

The only thing I can think of off-hand is more in the vein of taking
print-quality images and using them in books without permission.  But
then again, I'm not familiar with any example of that actually
happening; it's just a worry passed down from higher-ups.

But I'm curious about any specific examples of such unauthorized
reproduction that anybody might have.

--E.

Eric D. M. Johnson
Web Services Librarian
Jefferson Library, Monticello
P.O. Box 316
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (434) 984-7540 | Fax: (434) 984-7546
http://www.monticello.org/library/
ejohnson at monticello.org



-Original Message-
From: Morgan, Matt [mailto:matt.mor...@metmuseum.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing, but
don't, purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like crazy
here so it's a good day to sit in my office and rant about one of my
bugbears a little bit.

We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a significant,
commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object images. It just isn't
done--there is no business model in stealing images. Getting images of
more than 1000px (from Flickr, for example) of our objects is a trivial
matter, so it cannot be that increasing image sizes on our own websites
will make this problem materialize.

I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all face.
I just think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start
letting people enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or blowing
them up until they're fuzzy.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 11:10 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g.
Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet print
we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to
scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and
provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such as
Zoomify.

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit
"commercially viable"? Surely more than 500px.

On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Hi Matt,

The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
it, it should be us.

With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
would be a lot more difficult.

Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the
online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum
file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just
kind of a pain!

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there
are a lot of good arguments for very big images online now:

1) modern browsers handle resizing well
2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as
easy for users as zooming, and shows them as much of the picture as will
fit in the window (rather than arbitra

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Eric Johnson]

Hi, Will--

In fact, I just posed my last question because I'm just starting to pull
together whatever I can to create a kind of "white paper" about the
cost/benefits of giving away information for free in a museum setting
(e.g. high quality images, full text of publications, etc.).

So I, too, would be very interested in any other studies that have been
done!  I know author Corey Doctorow has famously made the case that he
sells *more* books because he gives away the full text of those books
for free under a Creative Commons License.  And there are other cases
out there, too, of mission-driven reasons for giving away high quality
content--Michael Edson, for instance, made an argument along these lines
at MCN 2008 with regard to the Smithsonian Commons.  Some of these
examples aim to provide institutional remuneration through other
channels (e.g. licensing), and some simply show the fulfillment of that
higher mission.

In the meantime, I'm looking forward to Chris Anderson's forthcoming
book, _Free: The Future of a Radical Price_ to see what he's got to say
about all this.

In any case, I don't claim specific expertise but I'm certainly happy to
share the results of whatever it is I come up with.  In the meantime,
I'd definitely be interested in hearing about other cases being made in
museums, too.

--E.

Eric D. M. Johnson
Web Services Librarian
Jefferson Library, Monticello
P.O. Box 316
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (434) 984-7540 | Fax: (434) 984-7546
http://www.monticello.org/library/
ejohnson at monticello.org




-Original Message-
From: Real, Will [mailto:re...@carnegiemuseums.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:55 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Hi Matt, Ken, et al.,

Matt said "there is no business model in stealing images" which may well
be true. At the same time, I know my administration would ask me what my
business plan would be for giving images away (in the manner of the
British Library link posted by Ken). And they would not mean "we should
do it because we are a public service institution". 

Anecdotally the case has been stated for the business sense of giving
stuff away, and certainly there are high-profile examples in other media
(Radiohead, Paolo Coelho) but has anyone in the museum industry studied
this formally with regard to images? If so, I am ready to try.

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing, but
don't, purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like crazy
here so it's a good day to sit in my office and rant about one of my
bugbears a little bit.

We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a significant,
commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object images. It just isn't
done--there is no business model in stealing images. Getting images of
more than 1000px (from Flickr, for example) of our objects is a trivial
matter, so it cannot be that increasing image sizes on our own websites
will make this problem materialize.

I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all face.
I just think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start
letting people enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or blowing
them up until they're fuzzy.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 11:10 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g.
Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet print
we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to
scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and
provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such as
Zoomify.

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit
"commercially viable"? Surely more than 500px.

On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Hi Matt,

The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
it, it should be us.

With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
would be a lot more difficult.

Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
permission from the copyr

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Eric Johnson]

Matt raises an interesting point: has anybody ever had any problems with
people "lifting" high-quality images of your collection without seeking
permission and making money with them (posters, t-shirts, etc.)?

The only thing I can think of off-hand is more in the vein of taking
print-quality images and using them in books without permission.  But
then again, I'm not familiar with any example of that actually
happening; it's just a worry passed down from higher-ups.

But I'm curious about any specific examples of such unauthorized
reproduction that anybody might have.

--E.

Eric D. M. Johnson
Web Services Librarian
Jefferson Library, Monticello
P.O. Box 316
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (434) 984-7540 | Fax: (434) 984-7546
http://www.monticello.org/library/
ejohnson at monticello.org



-Original Message-
From: Morgan, Matt [mailto:matt.mor...@metmuseum.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing, but
don't, purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like crazy
here so it's a good day to sit in my office and rant about one of my
bugbears a little bit.

We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a significant,
commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object images. It just isn't
done--there is no business model in stealing images. Getting images of
more than 1000px (from Flickr, for example) of our objects is a trivial
matter, so it cannot be that increasing image sizes on our own websites
will make this problem materialize.

I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all face.
I just think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start
letting people enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or blowing
them up until they're fuzzy.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 11:10 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g.
Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet print
we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to
scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and
provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such as
Zoomify.

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit
"commercially viable"? Surely more than 500px.

On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Hi Matt,

The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
it, it should be us.

With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
would be a lot more difficult.

Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the
online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum
file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just
kind of a pain!

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there
are a lot of good arguments for very big images online now:

1) modern browsers handle resizing well
2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as
easy for users as zooming, and shows them as much of the picture as will
fit in the window (rather than arbitrarily limiting to a zoom pane)
3) connections are getting faster
4) and anyway, images are our "franchise" so if we're going to test
users' bandwidth limits, this is the place to do it.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 8:50 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

We typically use 2400 px images in our internal database. The database
creates a series of derivatives upon import and the user can then choose
which version they want to open, save, or print. The derivatives are
about 900 px, and a thumbnail. The tiff masters are stored outside of
the database and range from about 3000 px to 8000 px.

When the images are processed over to the web side, three sizes are
created: 500 px, 240 px, and 80 px.

In the future we hope to use zoomable formats on the web (e.g. Zoomify,
jpeg2000) and if so would probably publish the full 2400 px versio

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Real, Will]

Hi Matt, Ken, et al.,

Matt said "there is no business model in stealing images" which may well
be true. At the same time, I know my administration would ask me what my
business plan would be for giving images away (in the manner of the
British Library link posted by Ken). And they would not mean "we should
do it because we are a public service institution". 

Anecdotally the case has been stated for the business sense of giving
stuff away, and certainly there are high-profile examples in other media
(Radiohead, Paolo Coelho) but has anyone in the museum industry studied
this formally with regard to images? If so, I am ready to try.

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing, but
don't, purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like crazy
here so it's a good day to sit in my office and rant about one of my
bugbears a little bit.

We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a significant,
commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object images. It just isn't
done--there is no business model in stealing images. Getting images of
more than 1000px (from Flickr, for example) of our objects is a trivial
matter, so it cannot be that increasing image sizes on our own websites
will make this problem materialize.

I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all face.
I just think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start
letting people enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or blowing
them up until they're fuzzy.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 11:10 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g.
Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet print
we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to
scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and
provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such as
Zoomify.

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit
"commercially viable"? Surely more than 500px.

On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Hi Matt,

The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
it, it should be us.

With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
would be a lot more difficult.

Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the
online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum
file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just
kind of a pain!

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there
are a lot of good arguments for very big images online now:

1) modern browsers handle resizing well
2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as
easy for users as zooming, and shows them as much of the picture as will
fit in the window (rather than arbitrarily limiting to a zoom pane)
3) connections are getting faster
4) and anyway, images are our "franchise" so if we're going to test
users' bandwidth limits, this is the place to do it.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 8:50 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

We typically use 2400 px images in our internal database. The database
creates a series of derivatives upon import and the user can then choose
which version they want to open, save, or print. The derivatives are
about 900 px, and a thumbnail. The tiff masters are stored outside of
the database and range from about 3000 px to 8000 px.

When the images are processed over to the web side, three sizes are
created: 500 px, 240 px, and 80 px.

In the future we hope to use zoomable formats on the web (e.g. Zoomify,
jpeg2000) and if so would probably publish the full 2400 px version from
the collections database.

Will Real
Carnegie Museum of Art



From: mcn-l-boun...

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Morgan, Matt]

I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing, but don't, 
purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like crazy here so it's a 
good day to sit in my office and rant about one of my bugbears a little bit.

We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a significant, 
commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object images. It just isn't 
done--there is no business model in stealing images. Getting images of more 
than 1000px (from Flickr, for example) of our objects is a trivial matter, so 
it cannot be that increasing image sizes on our own websites will make this 
problem materialize.

I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all face. I just 
think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start letting people 
enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or blowing them up until they're 
fuzzy.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 11:10 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g.
Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet print
we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to
scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and
provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such as
Zoomify.

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit
"commercially viable"? Surely more than 500px.

On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Hi Matt,

The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
it, it should be us.

With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
would be a lot more difficult.

Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the
online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum
file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just
kind of a pain!

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there
are a lot of good arguments for very big images online now:

1) modern browsers handle resizing well
2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as
easy for users as zooming, and shows them as much of the picture as will
fit in the window (rather than arbitrarily limiting to a zoom pane)
3) connections are getting faster
4) and anyway, images are our "franchise" so if we're going to test
users' bandwidth limits, this is the place to do it.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 8:50 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

We typically use 2400 px images in our internal database. The database
creates a series of derivatives upon import and the user can then choose
which version they want to open, save, or print. The derivatives are
about 900 px, and a thumbnail. The tiff masters are stored outside of
the database and range from about 3000 px to 8000 px.

When the images are processed over to the web side, three sizes are
created: 500 px, 240 px, and 80 px.

In the future we hope to use zoomable formats on the web (e.g. Zoomify,
jpeg2000) and if so would probably publish the full 2400 px version from
the collections database.

Will Real
Carnegie Museum of Art



From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Images
Sent: Fri 5/1/2009 14:57
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: [MCN-L] image sizes



I'm wondering what size(s) of images people are using in their internal
databases? 1024 pixels on the long side plus a thumbnail view? What size
do you use for online purposes?

Many thanks!
Danielle
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu
 )

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Real, Will]

Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g.
Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet print
we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to
scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and
provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such as
Zoomify.

Will  

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit
"commercially viable"? Surely more than 500px.

On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Hi Matt,

The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
it, it should be us.

With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
would be a lot more difficult.

Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the
online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum
file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just
kind of a pain!

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there
are a lot of good arguments for very big images online now:

1) modern browsers handle resizing well
2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as
easy for users as zooming, and shows them as much of the picture as will
fit in the window (rather than arbitrarily limiting to a zoom pane)
3) connections are getting faster
4) and anyway, images are our "franchise" so if we're going to test
users' bandwidth limits, this is the place to do it.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 8:50 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

We typically use 2400 px images in our internal database. The database
creates a series of derivatives upon import and the user can then choose
which version they want to open, save, or print. The derivatives are
about 900 px, and a thumbnail. The tiff masters are stored outside of
the database and range from about 3000 px to 8000 px.

When the images are processed over to the web side, three sizes are
created: 500 px, 240 px, and 80 px.

In the future we hope to use zoomable formats on the web (e.g. Zoomify,
jpeg2000) and if so would probably publish the full 2400 px version from
the collections database.

Will Real
Carnegie Museum of Art



From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Images
Sent: Fri 5/1/2009 14:57
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: [MCN-L] image sizes



I'm wondering what size(s) of images people are using in their internal
databases? 1024 pixels on the long side plus a thumbnail view? What size
do you use for online purposes?

Many thanks!
Danielle
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu
 )

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/



___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/

___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l 

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Morgan, Matt]

I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit "commercially 
viable"? Surely more than 500px.

On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

Hi Matt,

The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
it, it should be us.

With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
would be a lot more difficult.

Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the
online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum
file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just
kind of a pain!

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there
are a lot of good arguments for very big images online now:

1) modern browsers handle resizing well
2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as
easy for users as zooming, and shows them as much of the picture as will
fit in the window (rather than arbitrarily limiting to a zoom pane)
3) connections are getting faster
4) and anyway, images are our "franchise" so if we're going to test
users' bandwidth limits, this is the place to do it.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 8:50 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

We typically use 2400 px images in our internal database. The database
creates a series of derivatives upon import and the user can then choose
which version they want to open, save, or print. The derivatives are
about 900 px, and a thumbnail. The tiff masters are stored outside of
the database and range from about 3000 px to 8000 px.

When the images are processed over to the web side, three sizes are
created: 500 px, 240 px, and 80 px.

In the future we hope to use zoomable formats on the web (e.g. Zoomify,
jpeg2000) and if so would probably publish the full 2400 px version from
the collections database.

Will Real
Carnegie Museum of Art



From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Images
Sent: Fri 5/1/2009 14:57
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: [MCN-L] image sizes



I'm wondering what size(s) of images people are using in their internal
databases? 1024 pixels on the long side plus a thumbnail view? What size
do you use for online purposes?

Many thanks!
Danielle
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu

 )

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/



___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer 
Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Real, Will]

Hi Matt,

The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
it, it should be us.

With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
would be a lot more difficult.

Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the
online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum
file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just
kind of a pain!

Will

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Morgan, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes

Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there
are a lot of good arguments for very big images online now:

1) modern browsers handle resizing well
2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as
easy for users as zooming, and shows them as much of the picture as will
fit in the window (rather than arbitrarily limiting to a zoom pane)
3) connections are getting faster
4) and anyway, images are our "franchise" so if we're going to test
users' bandwidth limits, this is the place to do it.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 8:50 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

We typically use 2400 px images in our internal database. The database
creates a series of derivatives upon import and the user can then choose
which version they want to open, save, or print. The derivatives are
about 900 px, and a thumbnail. The tiff masters are stored outside of
the database and range from about 3000 px to 8000 px.

When the images are processed over to the web side, three sizes are
created: 500 px, 240 px, and 80 px.

In the future we hope to use zoomable formats on the web (e.g. Zoomify,
jpeg2000) and if so would probably publish the full 2400 px version from
the collections database.

Will Real
Carnegie Museum of Art



From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Images
Sent: Fri 5/1/2009 14:57
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: [MCN-L] image sizes



I'm wondering what size(s) of images people are using in their internal
databases? 1024 pixels on the long side plus a thumbnail view? What size
do you use for online purposes?

Many thanks!
Danielle
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu
 )

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/



___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Dennis Moser]

Hello all,

The reason we have legal counsel is to have the trained pit-bulls to go
after people who use our assets without appropriate permissions.

As for Will Real's administrators asking him about his business plan for
giving things away, I would point them in the direction of this website
sponsored by JISC and the University of Glasgow:

http://www.gla.ac.uk/espida/index.shtml

... as it provides all the ammunition you would want for developing just
such business model.

Let's face it, so long as there is "property", there will be "theft".

(I'm facing these same issues with an open repository that will contain both
image and text ... )

Best,

Dennis


~~
"Crazy" is a term of art: "Insane" is a term of Law. Remember that, and you
will save yourself a lot of trouble. ~ Hunter S. Thompson


On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 09:55, Eric Johnson  wrote:

> Matt raises an interesting point: has anybody ever had any problems with
> people "lifting" high-quality images of your collection without seeking
> permission and making money with them (posters, t-shirts, etc.)?
>
> The only thing I can think of off-hand is more in the vein of taking
> print-quality images and using them in books without permission.  But
> then again, I'm not familiar with any example of that actually
> happening; it's just a worry passed down from higher-ups.
>
> But I'm curious about any specific examples of such unauthorized
> reproduction that anybody might have.
>
> --E.
>
> Eric D. M. Johnson
> Web Services Librarian
> Jefferson Library, Monticello
> P.O. Box 316
> Charlottesville, VA 22902
> Phone: (434) 984-7540 | Fax: (434) 984-7546
> http://www.monticello.org/library/
> ejohnson at monticello.org
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Morgan, Matt [mailto:matt.morgan at metmuseum.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM
> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
>
> I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing, but
> don't, purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like crazy
> here so it's a good day to sit in my office and rant about one of my
> bugbears a little bit.
>
> We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a significant,
> commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object images. It just isn't
> done--there is no business model in stealing images. Getting images of
> more than 1000px (from Flickr, for example) of our objects is a trivial
> matter, so it cannot be that increasing image sizes on our own websites
> will make this problem materialize.
>
> I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all face.
> I just think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start
> letting people enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or blowing
> them up until they're fuzzy.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
> On 5/5/09 11:10 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:
>
> Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g.
> Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet print
> we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to
> scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and
> provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such as
> Zoomify.
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
> Morgan, Matt
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM
> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
>
> I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit
> "commercially viable"? Surely more than 500px.
>
> On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use
> the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
> thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
> museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there
> is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
> it, it should be us.
>
> With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
> loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
> able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
> would be a lot more difficult.
>
> Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
> permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the
> online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum
> file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just
> kind of a pain!
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
> Morgan, Matt
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM
> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
>
> Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there
> are a lot of good arguments for very big images onli

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Morgan, Matt]

Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there are a 
lot of good arguments for very big images online now:

1) modern browsers handle resizing well
2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as easy for 
users as zooming, and shows them as much of the picture as will fit in the 
window (rather than arbitrarily limiting to a zoom pane)
3) connections are getting faster
4) and anyway, images are our "franchise" so if we're going to test users' 
bandwidth limits, this is the place to do it.

Thanks,
Matt


On 5/5/09 8:50 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:

We typically use 2400 px images in our internal database. The database creates 
a series of derivatives upon import and the user can then choose which version 
they want to open, save, or print. The derivatives are about 900 px, and a 
thumbnail. The tiff masters are stored outside of the database and range from 
about 3000 px to 8000 px.

When the images are processed over to the web side, three sizes are created: 
500 px, 240 px, and 80 px.

In the future we hope to use zoomable formats on the web (e.g. Zoomify, 
jpeg2000) and if so would probably publish the full 2400 px version from the 
collections database.

Will Real
Carnegie Museum of Art



From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Images
Sent: Fri 5/1/2009 14:57
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: [MCN-L] image sizes



I'm wondering what size(s) of images people are using in their internal 
databases? 1024 pixels on the long side plus a thumbnail view? What size do you 
use for online purposes?

Many thanks!
Danielle
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer 
Network (http://www.mcn.edu  )

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/

[MCN-L] IP SIG: Library Association Comments on Google Book Search Settlement

[Amalyah Keshet [akes...@imj.org.il]]

Forwarded from another list:


From:  Jonathan Band
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 10:29 PM
Subject: Library Association Comments on Google Book Search Settlement

Just to keep the conversation alive, attached is the press release on the 
filing of comments by the American Library Association, the Association of 
College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries on 
the proposed settlement.  The comments can be found on the ALA and ARL websites.



Library associations ask judge to assert vigorous

oversight of proposed Google Book Search Settlement

WASHINGTON, DC - The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of 
College

and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) 
today filed

comments with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for 
the judge to

consider in his ruling on the proposed Google Book Search Settlement. The 
associations asked

the judge to exercise vigorous oversight of the interpretation and 
implementation of the

settlement to ensure the broadest possible benefit from the services the 
settlement enables.

Representing over 139,000 libraries and 350,000 librarians, the associations 
filed the brief as

members of the plaintiff class because they are both authors and publishers of 
books. The

associations asserted that although the settlement has the potential to provide 
public access to

millions of books, many of the features of the settlement, including the 
absence of competition

for the new services, could compromise fundamental library values including 
equity of access to

information, patron privacy and intellectual freedom. The court can mitigate 
these possible

negative effects by regulating the conduct of Google and the Book Rights 
Registry the settlement

establishes.

"While this settlement agreement could provide unprecedented access to a 
digital library of

millions of books, we are concerned that the cost of an institutional 
subscription may skyrocket,

as academic journal subscriptions have over the past two decades," Erika Linke, 
president of

ACRL, said.

Under the settlement, Google, the Association of American Publishers and the 
Authors Guild

resolved their legal dispute over the scanning of millions of books provided by 
research libraries.

The library associations are not asking the judge to reject the settlement. 
Instead, they are

requesting the judge to carefully monitor the parties' behavior once the 
settlement takes effect.

Jim Rettig, president of ALA, said the proposed settlement, "offers no 
assurances that the privacy

of what the public accessed will be protected, which is in stark contrast to 
the long-standing

patron privacy rights libraries champion on behalf of the public."

Although the filing deadline for comments to the judge was recently extended by 
four months, the

associations moved forward with filing by the original deadline to help inform 
the public as it

considers this important and complex matter.

"The filing before the court by the library associations demonstrates that the 
associations will be

vigilant in highlighting the interests of the public in this settlement. We 
have asked the court to

exercise vigorous oversight to ensure that the powerful groups that control 
content do not leave

individual researchers, libraries, other cultural organizations and the public 
without an effective

voice," Tom Leonard, president of ARL, said.

http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Real, Will]

We typically use 2400 px images in our internal database. The database creates 
a series of derivatives upon import and the user can then choose which version 
they want to open, save, or print. The derivatives are about 900 px, and a 
thumbnail. The tiff masters are stored outside of the database and range from 
about 3000 px to 8000 px.
 
When the images are processed over to the web side, three sizes are created: 
500 px, 240 px, and 80 px.
 
In the future we hope to use zoomable formats on the web (e.g. Zoomify, 
jpeg2000) and if so would probably publish the full 2400 px version from the 
collections database.
 
Will Real
Carnegie Museum of Art



From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Images
Sent: Fri 5/1/2009 14:57
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: [MCN-L] image sizes



I'm wondering what size(s) of images people are using in their internal 
databases? 1024 pixels on the long side plus a thumbnail view? What size do you 
use for online purposes?

Many thanks!
Danielle
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer 
Network (http://www.mcn.edu  )

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/

[MCN-L] image sizes

[Kenneth Hamma]

Will,

Moving beyond this is happening in lots of places already.  Look, for  
example, at the image availability for prints in the British Museum:  
e.g., http://tinyurl.com/cu9the

According to staff at the British Museum, this has proven very  
popular, way beyond the point that they could have any hope of  
enforcing the use limitations - if they had ever intended to do so for  
images of public domain works.

ken

Kenneth Hamma

+1 310 270 8008
khamma at me.com

368 Patel Place
Palm Springs CA 92264

On May 5, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Real, Will wrote:

> Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g.
> Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet  
> print
> we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to
> scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and
> provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such  
> as
> Zoomify.
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf  
> Of
> Morgan, Matt
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM
> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
>
> I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit
> "commercially viable"? Surely more than 500px.
>
> On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to  
> use
> the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a
> thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our
> museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that  
> there
> is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make
> it, it should be us.
>
> With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without
> loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be
> able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it
> would be a lot more difficult.
>
> Another reason is that some images are published on the web with
> permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies  
> the
> online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different  
> maximum
> file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course,  
> just
> kind of a pain!
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf  
> Of
> Morgan, Matt
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM
> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
>
> Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think  
> there
> are a lot of good arguments for very big images online now:
>
> 1) modern browsers handle resizing well
> 2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as
> easy for users as zooming, and shows them as much of the picture as  
> will
> fit in the window (rather than arbitrarily limiting to a zoom pane)
> 3) connections are getting faster
> 4) and anyway, images are our "franchise" so if we're going to test
> users' bandwidth limits, this is the place to do it.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
> On 5/5/09 8:50 AM, "Real, Will"  wrote:
>
> We typically use 2400 px images in our internal database. The database
> creates a series of derivatives upon import and the user can then  
> choose
> which version they want to open, save, or print. The derivatives are
> about 900 px, and a thumbnail. The tiff masters are stored outside of
> the database and range from about 3000 px to 8000 px.
>
> When the images are processed over to the web side, three sizes are
> created: 500 px, 240 px, and 80 px.
>
> In the future we hope to use zoomable formats on the web (e.g.  
> Zoomify,
> jpeg2000) and if so would probably publish the full 2400 px version  
> from
> the collections database.
>
> Will Real
> Carnegie Museum of Art
>
> 
>
> From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu on behalf of Images
> Sent: Fri 5/1/2009 14:57
> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
> Subject: [MCN-L] image sizes
>
>
>
> I'm wondering what size(s) of images people are using in their  
> internal
> databases? 1024 pixels on the long side plus a thumbnail view? What  
> size
> do you use for online purposes?
>
> Many thanks!
> Danielle
> ___
> You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
> Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu
>  > ww.mcn.edu/> )
>
> To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu
>
> To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
> http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
>
> The MCN-L archives can be found at:
> http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
>
>
>
> ___
> You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
> Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu)
>
> To