NSA's Stellar Wind Program Was Almost Completely Useless, Hidden From FISA Court By NSA And FBI

The US Government Should Release These 7,584 Fruit Paintings

from the the-public-domain-matters dept

Mon, Apr 27th 2015 1:39pm — Parker Higgins

The federal government is sitting on 7,584 historical agricultural watercolor paintings that it should make freely available to the public today. Currently, people have access only to low-quality previews of the images; the United States Department of Agriculture, where the archive is held, should serve the public interest by making the entire collection of high quality scans free for all.

The USDA's National Agricultural Library hosts the Pomological Watercolor Collection, which contains images of different varieties of fruits and nuts, commissioned between 1886 and 1942.

They're remarkable as art, and also have serious scientific importance: they are some of the only documentation, for example, of thousands of apple types that no longer exist. The USDA has called the Pomological Watercolor Collection "Perhaps the most attractive as well as historically important of NAL's treasures," and it was cited just this week in a Washington State University article about apple preservation efforts.

The public should have access to these images, and that access should be automatic and unrestricted. Fortunately, that is technically possible: the USDA, through a grant from an environmental non-profit called The Ceres Trust, went though a multi-year digitization effort and now has high-quality scans of every image. However, members of the public can currently only view low-resolution versions online, can only request up to three high-quality scans free of charge, and must pay $10 per file beyond that.

And though the order page touts the fact that a portion of proceeds will go to conservation efforts, the numbers just don't add up. I suspected that conservation costs are orders of magnitude higher than reproduction revenues, so I asked. Through a FOIA request to the USDA, I obtained the digitization project report, as well as a breakdown of the last three and a half years of revenues that the collection has generated.

Digitizing the images cost $288,442. Since the collection went online in 2011, members of the public have ordered just 81 images, for a total of $565. That relatively tiny amount simply cannot justify the cost to the public of keeping these images behind a paywall.

There's no question that these paintings, if made more available, could be creating value for the public. High quality images could be used in printed teaching materials, which can spur conservation efforts and spark agricultural research interests in students. They could illustrate relevant articles on Wikipedia, providing historical context from over a hundred years of agriculture. The high quality scans could be examined closely by independent researchers to turn up new information.

The collection could even expand if it is accessible enough, as the National Agricultural Library described in its own report: one researcher, on hearing about the digitization project, contributed seven contemporaneous paintings of blueberries that had been stored in his lab.

Again, here's the USDA's own words on the importance of public access to the collection:

With today's growing interest in heirloom varieties and others that are no longer commonly grown, the collection is an invaluable storehouse of fruit knowledge and history.

That knowledge is better served if the public has access to the scans, and it's possible to do that today. If the cost of hosting and bandwidth is an issue, the Internet Archive and Wikimedia Commons would almost certainly be willing to host even the highest resolution scans.

Reposted from parker higgins dot net

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, culture, department of agriculture, fruit, fruit paintings, history, paintings, public domain

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:52pm

"Perhaps the most attractive as well as historically important of NAL's treasures,"

And like all treasure is only valuable if it is hoarded and gloated over by the dragon.... I mean owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:52pm

Unless you can present it in a way that they earn money directly, they won't bite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re:
  It's not like the government needs a return on investment - and they currently aren't earning much money directly so what's the point?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geoff Lehr, 27 Apr 2015 @ 1:58pm

RECAP for Paintings?
Couldn't we do something similar to RECAP, since everyone can request up to three scans for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2015 @ 2:35am
  
  Re: RECAP for Paintings?
  Maybe I'm not being creative enough in my search, but I can't figure out what RECAP is. Could someone explain?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2015 @ 4:44am
    
    Re: Re: RECAP for Paintings?
    PACER is the access system for court filings.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_%28law%29
    Each document or page costs some money to search/access even if the court documents should be free as they are public and already payed for.
    
    RECAP
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RECAP
    Is a system trying to keep these documents free and accessible if they are already payed for/requested.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:10pm

How did they make $585 dollars at $10/picture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re:
  
  How did they make $585 dollars at $10/picture?
  
  Since the article claimed only 81 pictures sold, I'd say the $585 is the difference between $810 and whatever portion of the proceeds that went towards conservation efforts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 3:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    OP here: I didn't get into it in the article, but it looks like the price used to be $25, and that was dropped to $10. Every single "order" is documented in the FOIA docs I posted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:35pm

Crowdsource
Why not just crowd source it. Have 2528 different people each request 3 different images.Drop them all in a torrent file and free pretty pretty pictures for all! Not like there's any imaginable way it's copyright infringement since the government doesn't get those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re: Crowdsource
  It is probably a safe bet that the Ceres Trust will scream bloody murder, and rape, and terrorism, and pirates, and think of the children, and think of the environment, and a few more things only their lawyers could dream up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 3:49pm
  
  Re: Crowdsource
  There's an effort underway! https://docs.google.com/a/parkerhiggins.net/spreadsheets/d/1B3n4r4P-mSuZVd7DwY1Ok3zbWKGcnn-gQXKmE0vj 6SI/edit#gid=0
  
  It'd be nice to get this through cooperation, but in the meantime people are getting some beautiful pictures out of it already.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2015 @ 2:31am
    
    Re: Re: Crowdsource
    Sadly, the spreadsheet says that it may no longer be possible to order three for free. But even if there's a cost for the images, I'm in.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toestubber (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 2:43pm

Sunk costs
"The paintings were created by approximately twenty-one artists commissioned by USDA for this purpose."

The artists have already been paid. From the taxes of those who never lived to see the internet. There's no justification for keeping the art classified, and hasn't been for more than a century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 3:41pm

They are ours!
We paid for them. We own them! Give 'em to us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
afn29129 (profile), 27 Apr 2015 @ 6:29pm

One or 3 DVD(s) and a little postage
Under a sane system one, or 3 DVD's and a little postage would get a person a copy of the whole image collection.
Say... $10.00 or less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2015 @ 9:52pm

There's no question that these paintings, if made more available, could be creating value for the public. High quality images could be used in printed teaching materials, which can spur conservation efforts and spark agricultural research interests in students. They could illustrate relevant articles on Wikipedia, providing historical context from over a hundred years of agriculture. The high quality scans could be examined closely by independent researchers to turn up new information.

If people can study these , they can shake a finger at mobsanto and the lobbying groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]