Whoops - I think this is all a misunderstanding. The suggestion was to give people copyright in their faeces. That makes sense - Hollywood does it already.
Most artists are not exactly "doing fine," because most artists never have, and never will, "do fine" financially. That's true whether it's in the most proprietary, copyright-maximalist system imaginable, or a Free Culture utopia. Most artists are poor. If copyright actually made artists money, I'd support it. It doesn't. Conversely, the benefit of Free Culture isn't that it's a magic way for all artists to suddenly make lots of money. It's not. But it will allow for more art, and better art, and civil liberties, and freedom of expression, and cultural progress. More artists would be able to create and survive without copyright, and many would do better financially, but most would still "starve", just like today, and just like before copyright was ever invented.
#7 totally corroborates my own less formal findings. People buy Sita Sings the Blues DVDs to support me, and because they want a tangible object for their libraries. The survey's 100% was nice to see, and not surprising:
I wanted to support the band: 100%
I wanted to own the music: 61%
I wanted to own a tangible version of the album (CD/Vinyl): 61%
I wouldn't have been able to convince my past self either
I wouldn't have been able to convince my past self either, which is why I don't expect to actually convince anyone else. Still, it's good to speak truth for its own sake. It contributes to a language of change that helps others articulate what's happening, if/when they come to similar realizations on their own.
everything the industry is doing is to make sure that copyright law no longer benefits the public at all, but rather all of the benefits accrue solely to a few gatekeepers.
Thanks for the link to vintagevectors.com. I downloaded this caloric engine illustration. The vector file is 12.6 MB. The high res photoshop file is 11.3 MB. This is a fairly typical etching, and the vector version is larger than the (large) raster. It would be a monster to work with in any of my vector graphics programs; I'd get minutes of the "spinning rainbow" if I tried to edit it. Of course this isn't true for all images, and I respect vintagevector's handling of their images - breaking them into smaller chunks, for example, as in the case of these highly detailed border parts.
Very nice. But since the scans were originally captured as image files, wouldn't it be sensible if they could be obtained as such, rather than being converted back and forth? Can you imagine going through that for every image, when it's totally unnecessary?
Fortunately, Rick Prelinger left this comment on my blog:
You can easily download the still images from which Internet Archive PDFs were derived. There should be a link on the left side to “All Files,” right with the links to the various versions. You will see a menu, and what you want is the .zip of all the .jp2 files. It’s usually a large download, but you will then have each page in much better resolution and quality.
It's not quite that simple, but close. I replied:
Thanks Rick. The files listed for “The Harness Horse” are:
(2.8 M)PDF
(2.2 M)B/W PDF
(~72 pg)EPUB
(~72 pg)Kindle
(~72 pg)Daisy
(47.6 K)Full Text
(1.5 M)DjVu
Below that, there is “All Files: HTTP”. When I clicked that, I got a list of all kinds of things – and one was indeed .jp2 zip! Now that I know what it is, I can use it. But it’s very hidden! And we still don’t have an image archive, although poring through .jp2 files and cleaning up and tagging images found therein could be a way to contribute to one.
More comments than I expected on this article. One thing is clear: TD commenters are not well versed about graphics and how artists use them.
This may explain why there are no really good public image archives online: the leaders of public/open source projects are mostly techies, who (in general) don't understand images so well. And most visual artists, who do understand images, tend to cling to proprietary models and disdain public archives.
XKCD doesn't have a lot of hatching. Old etchings do. It really depends on the type of image. Simpler line art works great as vectors! Most of my own illustrations work better as vector art. But things with hatched shading are much less manageable as vectors than as raster images. Old etching have a lot of lines.
That said, properly scanning and preparing black and white line art does require some skill, so I'd just say "scanning and cleaning up" instead of "scanning and vectorizing."
Vectorizing etchings is a bad idea. All those lines and vertices add up to big memory-heavy files that crash graphics programs. Simple line art is better vectorized, but if it has a lot of hatching, high res raster images are superior.
Re: "I'd like to see our rich visual history properly archived."
the advocates of "free" here aren't willing for librarians or archivists to get any income from their services.
Actually I'd very much like some of the funding that currently exists for text, audio and motion picture archives to go towards making a PD image library, at least of black and white line illustrations, etchings, engravings and woodcuts. People need to be paid for something like that to work. The Library of Congress pays its staff; most archives have professional staff that are paid. But image archiving isn't valued the way text archiving is, and so it isn't funded as well. I assume most funders just don't think there's a need for it. I'm pointing out that yes, there is a need. A funded archive could include contributions from unpaid participants as well, but I don't think a proper image archive is going to happen without some real money.
On the post: Kopimism Approved As Official Religion In Sweden: File Sharing Now Protected Under Freedom Of Religion Laws?
How do I apply?
Failing that, I'd like to be canonized.
On the post: The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law
Re: Re: It's not broken
On the post: Daft Idea Of The Week: Giving People Copyright In Their Faces
Typo
On the post: Daft Idea Of The Week: Giving People Copyright In Their Faces
Without copyright...
On the post: Why We Don't Need To 'Think Of The Artists': They're Doing Fine
Hmm...
On the post: The Value Is In The Relationship, Not The MP3 File
Yes! People want to support artists
I'm not sure what "own the music means" though.
On the post: The Annotated Version Of Viacom's Employees Begging The Gov't To Censor The Internet To Save SpongeBob
Re:
On the post: Why All Filmmakers Should Speak Out Against SOPA
I wouldn't have been able to convince my past self either
On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Is Killing Copyright
but copyright has always been about this
Copyright has always been about benefits accruing solely to a few gatekeepers.
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
Re: I had no problem ...
Fortunately, Rick Prelinger left this comment on my blog:
It's not quite that simple, but close. I replied:
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
artists and techies
This may explain why there are no really good public image archives online: the leaders of public/open source projects are mostly techies, who (in general) don't understand images so well. And most visual artists, who do understand images, tend to cling to proprietary models and disdain public archives.
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
Re: Re: Re: Eh
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
Re: PDF is the most convoluted, horrible format possible.
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
Re: "I'd like to see our rich visual history properly archived."
Actually I'd very much like some of the funding that currently exists for text, audio and motion picture archives to go towards making a PD image library, at least of black and white line illustrations, etchings, engravings and woodcuts. People need to be paid for something like that to work. The Library of Congress pays its staff; most archives have professional staff that are paid. But image archiving isn't valued the way text archiving is, and so it isn't funded as well. I assume most funders just don't think there's a need for it. I'm pointing out that yes, there is a need. A funded archive could include contributions from unpaid participants as well, but I don't think a proper image archive is going to happen without some real money.
On the post: Dear Internet, We Need Better Image Archives
Re:
That's what I used.
Next >>