---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:33:08 -0600 (MDT)
From: Christopher Whittle <[log in to unmask]>
To: Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list MUSEUM-L <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Security of Images on WWW
This was returned.  I hope it doesn't get posted twice.

> On Fri, 25 Aug 1995 Christopher Whittle <[log in to unmask]>
> said:
>
> >Why study a postcard when a poster is available. Why use a picture in a
> book if
> >the original is available.
> ...
> >Depending on one's definition and their application low-res is worthless.
> I am
> >a scholar and I require the finest images technologically possible to do
> my
> >work.
> >
> A simple example drawn from non-electronic life illustrates my point.
> Until recently I owned a collection of postcards that had been put together
> by a well-known art historian.  Almost 6000 in number, these cards
> (weighing apx. 60 pounds) constituted an important archive of images in its
> category.  One could thumb through them freely and quickly, pull them, pile
> them and sort them in many different ways -- much faster than one can file
> through a set of medium resolution electronic images, by the way.  They may
> not have been publishable images by today's standards, but they became a
> great finding tool, wonderful for study purposes.  Imagine this collection,
> now, as a set of 6000 2 by 3 foot posters, wonderful in color, high in
> resolution, perfect for the most intense and demanding form of scholarly
> study.  Let's say they were each rolled up and stored in bins like the
> ancient rotuli in the library at Alexandria.  Well, several consequences of
> this change are obvious.  First, my house would have to quadruple in size
> just to hold them; second, access and comparison would be hampered by the
> problems in retrieval and display of these posters.  One just cannot make
> handy stacks of posters, compare sets of them, etc. etc.
>

Perhaps ypu misunderstand this thread.  It started as a discussion of
reducing resolution to deter tampering and theft.  Perhaps you also
misunderstand the process of making posters from postcards.  The process
you describe above would reduce the resolution.  No one suggested that
images be blown-up.

> In truth, when a scholar indicates that only the most highly resolved
> images are suitable, he is deluding himself because his own research
> methodologies necessarily make use of images culled from a variety of
> sources that differ in degrees of accessibility and levels of resolution.
> Scholars habitually collect images by xeroxing pictures from a variety of
> low resolution sources, including books and journals.  They buy postcards,
> send for 8x10 b&w study images, collect electronic images, and so on and
> on.  No scholar requires only 8x10 color transparencies for every use.
>
I have always used original specimens- The WWW is offering people like me
a new avenue.  My comments are targeted at those that want to post
approximations because they feel that people might "misuse" what they
post.

> If I may be allowed the liberty of prognostication, I would guess that as
> more and more object repositories place their image collections on-line, we
> will see a graded system of providing image access, one that perhaps
> (hopefully) will provide large collections of relatively low resolution
> images at no cost with no rights for use by scholars and other interested
> parties.  Consider these the analog of xeroxing images from books.  As
> resolution needs increase, specific costs will be exacted and rights will
> be attached.  Watermark branding that identifies the recipient, records the
> image identification and specifies the rights purchased will become
> standard.

These technological solutions get my stamp of approval- so long as they
are "invisible- branding an image with c 1995 Robber Baron is as
objectionably as reducing the resolution so that the individual pixels
are visible.
>

> Repositories of public domain images may grow into major picture sources.>
> There will always be some users, like Mr. Wittle, who demand the best
> images, with the most detail.  These exacting fellows will either be forced
> to limit their studies to the high resolution freebies or to go broke
> servicing their uncompromising standards -- but, of course, this will not
> happen.  These image users will make choices just like the rest of us.
> Some images will have to be seen in the original; high quality surrogates
> will suffice for other purposes, and low quality images will be just fine
> for other uses.
>
 Let the technology determine the resolution; not paranoia.
>