Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51

Durova
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:02:26 +0100
From: geni <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
       <[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
       <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

2009/7/18 John at Darkstar <[hidden email]>:
> Sorry, I don't follow you on this one. If the existing business model
> don't work and it should be changed, then work with them to change it
> and make the alternate options viable.
>
> John

We do not have the capacity to raise sufficient funds to make it a
worthwhile business model.


--
geni
-----
Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate
restoration into their curriculum.  You'll be surprised how scaleable this
is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities.

-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51

geni
2009/7/18 Durova <[hidden email]>:
> Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate
> restoration into their curriculum.  You'll be surprised how scaleable this
> is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities.
>
> -Durova

Restoration isn't the problem for the most part. The English part of
the National Monuments Record contains about 10 million items (mostly
photos I think). Wales and Scotland ad few million more.

That includes a fairly complete public domain aerial survey of the UK
from the 1940s.

We do not have the capacity to support digitalization on that scale.
--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: National Portrait Gallery

Yann Forget-2
geni wrote:

> 2009/7/18 Durova <[hidden email]>:
>> Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate
>> restoration into their curriculum.  You'll be surprised how scaleable this
>> is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities.
>>
>> -Durova
>
> Restoration isn't the problem for the most part. The English part of
> the National Monuments Record contains about 10 million items (mostly
> photos I think). Wales and Scotland ad few million more.
>
> That includes a fairly complete public domain aerial survey of the UK
> from the 1940s.
>
> We do not have the capacity to support digitalization on that scale.

Well, who's your "we"?

In the case of the NPG, it is quite clear that the cost of the
digitalization is small compared with the potential benefit.
There are people and organisations willing to pay to have a copy of
these famous portraits. The issue is how to collect the funds without
puting a copyright on the images. For this, we need a new business
model. Think about how donations was raised to free up Blender.[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#History

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: National Portrait Gallery

geni
2009/7/18 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:

> geni wrote:
>> 2009/7/18 Durova <[hidden email]>:
>>> Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate
>>> restoration into their curriculum.  You'll be surprised how scaleable this
>>> is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities.
>>>
>>> -Durova
>>
>> Restoration isn't the problem for the most part. The English part of
>> the National Monuments Record contains about 10 million items (mostly
>> photos I think). Wales and Scotland ad few million more.
>>
>> That includes a fairly complete public domain aerial survey of the UK
>> from the 1940s.
>>
>> We do not have the capacity to support digitalization on that scale.
>
> Well, who's your "we"?
>
> In the case of the NPG, it is quite clear that the cost of the
> digitalization is small compared with the potential benefit.
> There are people and organisations willing to pay to have a copy of
> these famous portraits. The issue is how to collect the funds without
> puting a copyright on the images. For this, we need a new business
> model. Think about how donations was raised to free up Blender.[1]
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#History

€100,000 is not a significant amount of money when dealing with trying
to digitalize the various UK archives.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51

Durova
In reply to this post by Durova
2009/7/18 Durova <[hidden email]>:
> Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate
> restoration into their curriculum.  You'll be surprised how scaleable this
> is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities.
>
> -Durova

Restoration isn't the problem for the most part. The English part of
the National Monuments Record contains about 10 million items (mostly
photos I think). Wales and Scotland ad few million more.

That includes a fairly complete public domain aerial survey of the UK
from the 1940s.

We do not have the capacity to support digitalization on that scale.
--
geni
----
Are you talking about our capacity or their capacity?  The Library of
Congress has 14 million items and has been digitizing since 1994.  It's an
ongoing process; they've developed excellent protocols.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/about/techIn.html

-Durova

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: National Portrait Gallery

Sage Ross
In reply to this post by geni
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM, geni<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/7/18 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>> In the case of the NPG, it is quite clear that the cost of the
>> digitalization is small compared with the potential benefit.
>> There are people and organisations willing to pay to have a copy of
>> these famous portraits. The issue is how to collect the funds without
>> puting a copyright on the images. For this, we need a new business
>> model. Think about how donations was raised to free up Blender.[1]
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#History
>
> €100,000 is not a significant amount of money when dealing with trying
> to digitalize the various UK archives.
>

The exact amount of money is beside the point.  I think the business
model analagous to Blender goes something like this:

A GLAM figures out the cost per item of its digitization project.
Take that, add some modest figure for subsidizing the rest of the
institution's activities, and that's the price for releasing any given
reproduction.  Anyone may contribute all or part of the price for
releasing any given work.  Once the full price has been reached, the
scan is made available for free to anyone.

Maybe this would happen in lots, with the most popular/useful/valuable
works digitized in the early lots with higher prices so that the
capital investments get recouped early on.  The next lot gets
digitized once a certain threshold is reached with the previous one
(e.g., the break-even point to finance the next lot).  Maybe there are
tiers for any given work:$X for 800px, $2X for 1600px, $4X for 3200px,
etc.  If the 1600px version is available already but you really need
the 3200px version, you pay the difference of $2X and now the 3200px
version is available for everyone.

The advantage of this scheme is that there are several groups who
would be likely to help pay for the digitization: publishers who need
hi-res versions and who would previously have paid for licensing; arts
lovers who would be making donations anyway (and who can now point
exactly to what their donation funded); free culture advocates.  And
if there is some way of recognizing the donors ("This portrait was
digitized thanks to the donations of John Q. Wikipedian and Sally B.
Artlover"), it might be much more financially successful in the short
to medium term than the copyright-and-license model.

-Sage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: National Portrait Gallery

Yann Forget-2
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

> 2009/7/18 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>> In the case of the NPG, it is quite clear that the cost of the
>> digitalization is small compared with the potential benefit.
>> There are people and organisations willing to pay to have a copy of
>> these famous portraits. The issue is how to collect the funds without
>> puting a copyright on the images. For this, we need a new business
>> model. Think about how donations was raised to free up Blender.[1]
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#History
>
> €100,000 is not a significant amount of money when dealing with trying
> to digitalize the various UK archives.

Comparing the amount raised for a single (quite obscure) software with
what could be raised to digitalize world-famous works of art does not
make sense.

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: National Portrait Gallery

David Goodman
The problem is in sustaining the less used part of the collection,
which from an archival standpoint and also ultimate cultural value is
equally important.  Normally, any such institution would expect to use
the profits from the ones that sell most to support the others--[[The
long tail]].

This is analogous to the principle that it is easy to finance a
library of best-sellers--any town can do it, but only the very richest
organizations can afford a library that includes everything that might
be needed.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Yann Forget<[hidden email]> wrote:

> geni wrote:
>> 2009/7/18 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>>> In the case of the NPG, it is quite clear that the cost of the
>>> digitalization is small compared with the potential benefit.
>>> There are people and organisations willing to pay to have a copy of
>>> these famous portraits. The issue is how to collect the funds without
>>> puting a copyright on the images. For this, we need a new business
>>> model. Think about how donations was raised to free up Blender.[1]
>>>
>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#History
>>
>> €100,000 is not a significant amount of money when dealing with trying
>> to digitalize the various UK archives.
>
> Comparing the amount raised for a single (quite obscure) software with
> what could be raised to digitalize world-famous works of art does not
> make sense.
>
> Yann
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
> http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: National Portrait Gallery

John at Darkstar
In reply to this post by geni
Forget direct funding, its not practical. The interesting thing is, we
do have "sales organization" that is very important for
GLAM-institutions, and it is probably so interesting that a conflict
with us is simply to damaging. How do we turn this around to make it
even more interesting for them?

Imagine this, if a gallery or museum has a painting of some "Leonard van
der Olsen-Mozart" (he don't exist, hopefully..) then this museum should
make sure there is a bio for the person and of his painting of "The
fallen Madonna with the big bottom", and those should link back to the
galleries own pages. At those pages the gallery should make available
any high res copies, uv-scans, scientific works, etc, about the painting
and the painter. We should be "the yellow pages for the
GLAM-institutions". It should be so important for them to have a
presence on Wikipedia that it should raise questions from the government
if they don't have a sufficient presence.

Now, how do we make this possible? Forget direct funding, that is simply
not interesting. Making the material available is interesting because
this creates further use, not to forget visitors.

John

geni wrote:

> 2009/7/18 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>> geni wrote:
>>> 2009/7/18 Durova <[hidden email]>:
>>>> Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate
>>>> restoration into their curriculum.  You'll be surprised how scaleable this
>>>> is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities.
>>>>
>>>> -Durova
>>> Restoration isn't the problem for the most part. The English part of
>>> the National Monuments Record contains about 10 million items (mostly
>>> photos I think). Wales and Scotland ad few million more.
>>>
>>> That includes a fairly complete public domain aerial survey of the UK
>>> from the 1940s.
>>>
>>> We do not have the capacity to support digitalization on that scale.
>> Well, who's your "we"?
>>
>> In the case of the NPG, it is quite clear that the cost of the
>> digitalization is small compared with the potential benefit.
>> There are people and organisations willing to pay to have a copy of
>> these famous portraits. The issue is how to collect the funds without
>> puting a copyright on the images. For this, we need a new business
>> model. Think about how donations was raised to free up Blender.[1]
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#History
>
> €100,000 is not a significant amount of money when dealing with trying
> to digitalize the various UK archives.
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51

Geoffrey Plourde
In reply to this post by Durova
Digitizing isn't really that hard. You take a scanner, upload an image, label it, repeat.




________________________________
From: Durova <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 9:28:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51

2009/7/18 Durova <[hidden email]>:
> Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate
> restoration into their curriculum.  You'll be surprised how scaleable this
> is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities.
>
> -Durova

Restoration isn't the problem for the most part. The English part of
the National Monuments Record contains about 10 million items (mostly
photos I think). Wales and Scotland ad few million more.

That includes a fairly complete public domain aerial survey of the UK
from the 1940s.

We do not have the capacity to support digitalization on that scale.
--
geni
----
Are you talking about our capacity or their capacity?  The Library of
Congress has 14 million items and has been digitizing since 1994.  It's an
ongoing process; they've developed excellent protocols.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/about/techIn.html

-Durova

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I have had the pleasure of getting a tour at the Bibliotheka Alexandrina. It
was impressive and it certainly is not that simple. Certainly not when you
want to have a high quality high volume protocol.
Thanks,
        GerardM

2009/7/19 Geoffrey Plourde <[hidden email]>

> Digitizing isn't really that hard. You take a scanner, upload an image,
> label it, repeat.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Durova <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 9:28:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51
>
> 2009/7/18 Durova <[hidden email]>:
> > Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate
> > restoration into their curriculum.  You'll be surprised how scaleable
> this
> > is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities.
> >
> > -Durova
>
> Restoration isn't the problem for the most part. The English part of
> the National Monuments Record contains about 10 million items (mostly
> photos I think). Wales and Scotland ad few million more.
>
> That includes a fairly complete public domain aerial survey of the UK
> from the 1940s.
>
> We do not have the capacity to support digitalization on that scale.
> --
> geni
> ----
> Are you talking about our capacity or their capacity?  The Library of
> Congress has 14 million items and has been digitizing since 1994.  It's an
> ongoing process; they've developed excellent protocols.
>
> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/about/techIn.html
>
> -Durova
>
> --
> http://durova.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: National Portrait Gallery

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by John at Darkstar
2009/7/18 John at Darkstar <[hidden email]>:

> Imagine this, if a gallery or museum has a painting of some "Leonard van
> der Olsen-Mozart" (he don't exist, hopefully..) then this museum should
> make sure there is a bio for the person and of his painting of "The
> fallen Madonna with the big bottom", and those should link back to the
> galleries own pages. At those pages the gallery should make available
> any high res copies, uv-scans, scientific works, etc, about the painting
> and the painter. We should be "the yellow pages for the
> GLAM-institutions". It should be so important for them to have a
> presence on Wikipedia that it should raise questions from the government
> if they don't have a sufficient presence.


Giving galleries lots of links to their pages is something we should
be happy to do, as it's informative, educational and helps the reader.

One of the many Freedom Of Information requests people have filed with
the NPG in the past week (since this storm broke) is: what proportion
of their web hits are from Wikipedia/Wikimedia?


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l