In article <[log in to unmask]>, James
Cummings <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Roger Pearse wrote:
>
>> Agreed. But we need to get past this short-sighted selfishness. I
>> suggest that we keep bombarding them with requests to photograph.
>
>
>I feel this will be counter-productive. Sure, continue to request to
>be allowed to photograph (and be clear on what you are allowed to do
>with those photographs), where necessary for research. Making many
>such requests just to encourage them to become more lax in their
>policies will probably just result in the opposite. :-(
Since they are allowing nothing at the moment, there would appear to be
nothing to lose! What more can they do? But these people are
accountable to someone, and we can hardly complain that they don't pay
any attention to this evident need if we never write and tell them so.
We can always go and see our MP's.
Of course what happens when libraries get silly is that theft takes
place. If I were young and anarchistic I would be very tempted to just
steal the volumes, photograph them and return them. I doubt that I
would get worse than bound over by a judge. Even 'life imprisonment'
would last less time than I've spent on lobbying already, as we have all
just found out from the TV news. Sadly I am too old to be so rash. But
I do remember that when the Bodleian used to force people to pay £15 to
get a copy of an A3 fold-out in one volume, the last time I looked I
found that people had just quietly removed the pages in question.
Stupidity is bad for collections as well as for readers.
>>> But the money doesn't exist to continue it.
>>
>> Nor will it ever. We need reader photography, and that means lobbying
>> libraries and their boards.
>
>Is this necessarily the case? Or is it simply that there needs to be
>commercial interest in doing this. Proquest obviously felt that there
>was enough commercial interest in books 1473 and 1700 in order to
>entirely photograph nearly 125,000 works. These images form the basis
>of the hugely popular Early English Books Online. And now many are
>having full text created with the EEBO-TCP project.[1]
I'm not an entire fan of EEBO, since I, like 99% of the population, have
no access to it. We merely pay for the access of those who do. Is it
really desirable to create things only for a privileged elite?
But leaving that aside, I agree that this would also seem to be a
possible way forward. Perhaps we should start a company to do it! :)
>What is it that makes this a commercial and possible reality for works
>of this period but not works of an earlier period?
>
>> "Have you pestered your local library chairman today?" <smile>
>
>I believe Reg Carr, director of the Bodleian (which I'd understand as
>my local library chairman), understands these issues. Hence Bodley's
>participation in the Google mass digitisation of it 19thC collection. ;-)
The Bodleian are beginning to allow reader photography, albeit only of
modern books, and full marks to them.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
The Tertullian Project (tertullian.org)
Additional Fathers online in English (tertullian.org/fathers)
QuickLatin (quicklatin.com)
Promoting interest in Tertullian studies <><
|