Well, here's a rough draft of one of my most recent projects. As I have begun to collect old railroad artifacts, I have found myself with a lot of old paper artifacts that need to preserved. I do plan to properly archive these materials soon, and one day donate them to appropriate museums, but for now, I have begun an online museum/ gallery where my personal collection can be viewed and interpreted.

So far, only the first two collections are viewable, and even those aren't quite complete yet. Still, let me know what things you like about the site, and what needs to change. Do you like the idea of an online museum for otherwise invisible personal collections?

http://weekendrailroader.wix.com/thetrackshackmuseum

Thanks.

--Drew Black

I'd say a good start. Nice clear photos of the items. My only suggestion at this point is to add a search capability.

I do the cataloging for the Trolley Museum of New York's modest collection where everything that's cataloged is on-line and can be searched with Google. For example Google this and hopefully the first hit you'll see is a link to a specific picture: double exposure convertible trolleys

Drew, where was your backgropund photo taken? I really like it and would love to know where this is: http://static.wix.com/media/6f3aab_e3fdf4b4b8895ab3bb46f6f51cd306d4.jpg_srz_875_1167_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz

Viola, Jeff, you found it. Of course it helps to know what key words to search on to find something specific like that, but making a collection searchable, whether closed (app that runs on your web page) or open (web crawlers like Google find it) makes it that much more usable and more likely people will find it.

I have an extensive collection of train orders from all over the U.S. dating from the late 1880's through 1960. If anyone would find this useful, I'd be willing to digitalize the collection and post it somewhere on the web. Let me know via PM if this would be helpful or if there is a specific railroad of interest to you.

Stephen

I don't like the idea - I LOVE the idea.

I personally would very much like to see the contents of the UP guides, brochures, etc. I realize that would be a bit of scanning but only seeing the covers is a bit of a teaser for me.

Steve

I would love to scan the brochures and post the images on my website. However, I'm not sure what copyright laws cover the reproduction of old brochures. I suppose it could be for fair use since it's for "educational purposes"?

.

I would just love to see if there is anyone out there so anal-retentive, so persnickety, or so frivolous as to sue over copyright for reprinting or posting online the information or images from a 1935 or 1955 public timetable or advertising brochure.

I am aware that one need not assert a copyright with a symbol and official filing. However, I just now flipped through a compilation of various public TTs, employee TTs, and RR advertising brochures (tour guides for locations like Gettysburg and Baltimore, Grand Canyon on the Santa Fe, etc.), and not once did I locate any assertion of copyright. Form numbers, yes; quantity printed, yes; date printed, yes; copyright, no. And by now the information about the trains over now-gone routes is strictly historical, not creative or artistic.

Even the artwork in posters and calendars seems not to be copyrighted, or at least no one seems to be enforcing it heavily, which has made possible (thankfully) publication of books such as Travel By Train: The American Railroad Poster, 1870-1950 by Zega and Gruber, and Moonlight in Duneland by Cohen & McShane. (Now, true, in the latter case the authors/publishers had the express cooperation of the CSS&SB, which was still commissioning art for posters as the book was published.)

Well, I've gone ahead and left a message with Union Pacific, asking who to contact about obtaining permission to scan the artifacts and upload them. I also mentioned in there that I would be willing to let Union Pacific use those scans for their Facebook page and the like. I guess we'll see.

Well, I got this reply back from Union Pacific:


"Hi Drew,

Thank you for contacting UP. Many of the UP items you mention are probably copyrighted; however I don't have an objection if you are simply sharing your personal collection with your friends. You wouldn't have the right to grant others to use, and we'd prefer that the images aren't scanned at a high enough resolution for people to download and reproduce.

In addition, please don't use the UP shield or include Union Pacific in the name/address of this site, since it implies an official connection to Union Pacific.

Good luck with your project."


So, that would seem to pose a problem for scanning the contents of the paper material.

Meh. Just scan at the lowest resolution where the information is still readable.

When I/we scan builder's photos or the equivalent for web purposes, we scan 8x10 photos at 100-200 dpi--good enough to recognize a B&M from a PRR steamer, but not (necessarily) so detailed that we can read the builder's plate (and yes, we can in some of the 8x10's I have on this desk now).

See the third exception below.


If it's 1922 or earlier, it's definitely in the public domain unless it's a mark actively used in trade, the apocryphal example being the UPRR shield. (I say that to dodge another can of worms: trademark law.) That is the first exception.

The second exception is statutory: the law permits certain uses of copyrighted material, for instance "Fair Use". That definitely includes your library's right to digitally SCAN photos and OCR the full text, build a search engine that shows snippets and sample pages, do meta-analysis of the data and other scholarly activities. What more it may allow, I do not know.

That exception would cover most of what's proposed here. Now what about just sticking it all up on the web for anyone to download? I don't think Fair Use helps you with that, you'd have to go to the third exception.

However, I believe Fair Use *would* permit a controlled-access system where it worked like a real reference library, where users had to "check out" books while viewing them, and nobody else could view the book during that time.


The third exception is practical. You are infringing, but the operative word here is "fringe" ... they weren't using or profiting on the material at all, you're not profiting (much), and so far, they haven't asked you to stop. In that case, the law provides zero or trivially low money damages, so there is nothing worth suing for. That would make the lawsuit frivolous. Frivolous lawsuits have serious penalties (but only if the defendant asks for them). Normal plaintiffs don't want to risk it.

The people likely to hassle you despite exceptions 2 or 3 are:
1. zealots (like over in our copyright thread) who are in it for what's "Right" by their belief; and
2. trolls who are in it for your cash.
Each one acts different and requires a different strategy.


This falls in the second or third category. Emphasis on "much". You can see the ribs on that cow.