Posts by Gordon Paynter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Should TVNZ be allowed to bid for the RWC? They are after all just as much a state-underwritten, part advertising-funded broadcaster as Maori TV?
If the government could forbid both TVNZ and Maori TV from bidding on those rights, what would they be worth?
-
Hi all, two further points:
First, what is an original? The digital images and physical prints of archival images you get from the National Library these days are often digitised from the original negative. So the digitised version is just as "original" as the paper version (i.e. the actual original is the negative).
Second, making a high-quality copy does take labour and skill and thought and care by highly-trained professionals. It really does. I've seen it.
ScottY notes:
I do agree a photo of a photo/artwork, where the photographer has had to adjust the light, check compositon, focus etc., might qualify as copyright work. But I suspect a lot of archival work involves simply scanning a document or work without much thought as to those issues.
I suspect you'd be wrong (depending on what you mean by archival work, of course). When you copy a heritage image (or document) you have to take it out of secure storage and handle it and expose it to light and other hazards. You don't want to do this often as you risk damaging it. So you make sure you do a high quality copy so that if someone wants another copy later you don't have to handle the original again.
Gordon
-
But yes to Russell's gripe. It's often silly how restrictive these things are, particularly when the only copyright on the image is the one currently being applied by the library. The copyright on the original has now lapsed.
Copyright is possibly not the main issue here. Most libraries and archives want to make their collections available to you, for you to use as you see fit. However, there are two pertinent problems: funding and donor agreements. Funding is pretty clear cut. We don't have enough.
Donor agreements are more interesting. Photographs are not published works like books, so the archive/library will only have a copy because someone donated it to them. At the time of donation the archive/library would have signed an agreement with the donor that sets out what the archive/library can do (make it available in the reading room, etc) and cannot do (sell it, say). And chances are that a donor agreement negotiated 100 years ago does not include a provision allowing the archive/library to digitise the images and post them on the internet. Libraries and archives are grappling currently with these and similar issues.
Anyway, while we don't know the specifics in this case, the point is that the institution may be limited in what it is allowed to do under the donor agreement.
Think of donor agreements as being like Free Software licenses. If you re-use a computer program under the GPL, there are various things that you can do with it (use, modify, redistribute) and others that you cannot (withhold source code when asked). For the purposes of understanding what you can and cannot do, copyright is not particularly relevant. And the donor agreement (or license) continues to bind the parties even after the copyright expires.
Now you might argue that someone who donated something to an archive or library 100 years ago is not going to care too much about digitisation and online access, and if it is not in the donor agreement then we should err on the side of giving access. But libraries and archives are still soliciting donations to this day, and must demonstrate to potential donors that they will treat all donations in accordance with the donors wishes.
For this reason the Hillary Family spat is a disaster for Auckland Museum -- if you had a choce between donating something valuable to them, or to a similar institution that has not been in the news for contesting donor wishes, you'd probably choose the latter. And there's a similar worry that by appearing to minimise donor wishes (around digitisation, access, or anything else) institutions will lose the trust -- and gifts -- of potential donors.
HTH.
GordonDisclaimer: I digitise stuff for the National Library.
-
they have build a new catalogue besides the existing system
That's the same technology (Primo by ExLibris) I linked to and talked about briefly above.
-
Library catalogues do have a history of being feral like that. I'm not really sure what it is.
I'm not a systems librarian, but I can offer a few observations having worked in Libraries (currently the National Library).
1. Library software is generally poor quality software. I'm not sure why (though I can certainly speculate). It just is. And it's pricey too.
2. Z39.50. There is a horrid abomination of a standard for library search called Z39.50 that a lot of library systems used (and still use). Z39.50 is a stateful protocol, unlike HTTP which is stateless. In simple terms this means that to make it work online you have to add sessions. I would guess that a lot of these session-based catalogue search implementations are the result of either (1) asking a developer who has worked on Z39.50 to design an online search service, or (2) writing an online search service that relies on Z39.50 to provide the back-end search.
3. You say "catalogue", I say "content management system". Many online library catalogues are also library content management systems, which librarians essentially use to manage inventory (i.e. books, etc). The idea that regular people should be able to search the catalogue online is (in many cases) relatively new functionality that is tacked on the side, and therefore not always well-integrated or reliable, and certainly not the original purpose of the software.
(And while it is relatively new functionality for the CMS, library catalogue search was a fairly early internet application, so the implementations don't always follow what we now recognise as best practice for searching, hence the session timeouts and lack of useful links and so on.)
4. Finally, while the software is lousy and not designed for patrons, it is very complex and it is essential to running the business. It's not a case of replacing the search functionality on your website, it is a case of replacing a piece of workflow software shared by your entire organisation (and in some cases it has been in use for decades). This is very hard and very expensive. And Libraries are not exactly overfunded.
But there is good news. The current solution to these problems is that you create a separate, public-facing system that is designed to support patron search and access, and that keeps a separate copy of the catalogue data that is automatically refreshed from the CMSs (that the librarian's use) overnight. As a result, you should get happier patrons (because the software is designed for them) and librarians (because load is reduced on the CMS and patrons can find what they want more easily). These technologies are by-and-large still in development, but are a promising way forward.
HTH.
Gordon -
Korero
Sorry, but I think this should officially be declared management-speak, and not in a good way. I have frequently heard "let's have a korero about that" (or similar) used as a way to head off or shut down disagreement while appearing inclusive and culturally sensitive. It really grates.
YMMV.
Gordon -
If every bar has a glass and half of full cream milk, and the size of the bars has dropped from about 250 grams to 200 grams, does that mean there is proportionally more milk in the chocolate?
-
I notice some functions like eGovt being transferred from SSC to DIA. Anyone know more about the reasoning or the implications?
I believe the reasoning was that SSC should not be carrying out operational activities, and these have been transferred to DIA. SSC would then focus on a policy/advisory role. However, I believe many (most?) remaining positions at SSC have been "disestablished", as Andrew E notes.
-
Isn't the Police Association a union? They get a lot of TV coverage. And, I might add, you always know what Greg O'Connor is going to say, regardless of what facts are known, so it seems a little pointless.
-
Funny story.
A few years ago, David Gray played in Wellington, but t was $90+, which my wife and I thought it was far too expensive, and my parents and brother were visiting that weekend because it was Easter, so we decided not to go.
Anyway, it turns out that my brother's flatmate in Wanganui is a huge David Gray fan and went online as soon as tickets were available and clicked reload until such time as he was able to order the three centre seats in the front row for himself, his girlfriend, and my brother.
To complicate matters, my brother had borrowed a lawnmower and the Rolling Stones were playing Westpac Stadium, as can happen. And did I mention it was Easter. So the flatmate is driving down from Wanganui at top speed with his girlfriend, three David Gray tickets and a lawnmower in the car, when he rounds a corner to see a massive backlog of stopped traffic. He screeches to halt and just manages to avoid rear-ending the car in front.
And then he gets slammed by the driver behind him, causing the lawnmower to fly through the car and somehow injure the girlfriend, and next thing you know they're all off to the hospital. Luckily, they're mostly okay, though the car needs work and the lawnmower is totalled and the tickets are lost in Kapiti somewhere.
Long story short, my brother and my wife and I decide to go down to the venue and try to claim the tickets at the pickup window, so we can sit front-and-centre and watch David Gray, which we duly succeeded in doing.
However, my brother is naturally concerned about his flatmate and friend, so spends half the show texting them in the hospital. (There you have it, I am not off-topic.)
I guess I found it a little distracting from the next seat, but not nearly as annoying as the people shouting and talking behind us at Wilco. (Note to blond woman: Jeff doesn't care that you love him.)
I'll tell you who did seem to find it annoying though: David Gray. It wasn't the best show in the world, and maybe he is always like that, but he seemed a bit put out by the lack of enthusiasm from the audience (no dancing!) and I'm sure having some guy texting away in the very centre seat of the very front row did not help.
The funny thig is my brother is mostly blind so holds his phone right in front of his face, and he could barely see the stage anyway (even from the front row) so was oblivious to this effect. I've always thought that if I ever meet David Gray the first thing I'll do is apologise on his behalf.