

Getty Just Made 4,600 Images Public Domain - sharmanaetor
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/08/getty-just-made-4600-incredible-images-public-domain/

======
nfriedly
Here's a link to the actual collection:
[http://search.getty.edu/gateway/search?q=&cat=highlight&f=%2...](http://search.getty.edu/gateway/search?q=&cat=highlight&f=%22Open+Content+Images%22&rows=10&srt=a&dir=s&pg=1)

Getty's blog post about it: [http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/open-content-an-idea-
whose-time-...](http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/open-content-an-idea-whose-time-
has-come/)

An example page where you can download a 4264px × 3282px copy of Van Gogh's
'Irises' (28mb .jpg):
[http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=94...](http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=947)

I'm wondering how long it will be before someone creates a .torrent with the
entire collection...

~~~
mryingster
I won't lie... I came here hoping for a link to the torrent of the entire
collection...

~~~
rogerhoward
They had the S3 bucket originally set to allow listing - I grabbed it all
before I reported it to an engineer there.

Not going to post a torrent though - mostly cuz you all can figure it out
anyhow. The images are all of the form:

NNNNNN01.JPG on that S3 bucket.

NNNNNN is the object ID (the internal record ID of the work of art) zero-
padded to 6 digits. The object ID is the same value that appears, for
instance, in the URL on their online collection:

URL for Irises:
[http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=...](http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=947)

URL for the full-rez image on S3:
[http://gettylargeimages.s3.amazonaws.com/00094701.jpg](http://gettylargeimages.s3.amazonaws.com/00094701.jpg)

You figure it out :)

~~~
hobs
I dont understand... wouldnt offering a torrent be more friendly than us all
downloading it again?

~~~
6cxs2hd6
S3 buckets can act as torrents.

Source:
[http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/S3Torrent.htm...](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/S3Torrent.html)

~~~
hobs
Thats pretty sweet actually, definitely +1.

I said my original comment because the idea was to have use learn the power of
wget by redownloading all files, which seemed pointless to me.

------
TheZenPsycho
Might want to qualify that as Getty Museum. I thought the title referred to
Getty Images, the stock photo site.

~~~
therandomguy
They are not the same org?

~~~
justincormack
No. Not sure they were even the same member of the family.

~~~
cowsandmilk
Getty images was started by Mark Getty, grandson of J. Paul Getty who started
the art museum. So, not the same member of the family.

------
hayksaakian
This is only news because of the absurd US copyright system.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)

~~~
bostonpete
According to a comment on the page photos of old paintings or photos (whose
copyrights have already expired) are considered public domain in the US.

~~~
jedahan
My understanding is hazy, but is it possible that the particular photos taken
of objects that are three dimensional could not be under public domain as
there was artistic decisions made in capturing the object?

A photograph of a painting, meant to re-present that painting with as much
accuracy as possible, I think is under the public domain for public domain
works.

------
emptybits
Wow, from a quick browse, I think the moon crater image from the 1850s is what
I find most technically impressive because it intersects telescope optics,
negative chemistry, and printing chemistry. A 3683x2920 pixel image can be
downloaded.
[http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=44...](http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=44715)

~~~
eksith
Considering the technology available at the time, the detail is exquisite.

FYI, this is Copernicus
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_(lunar_crater)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_\(lunar_crater\))

~~~
emptybits
Thanks for the ID on the crater.

Observation... Copernicus is 93 km in diameter. The crater in the old print is
approximately 9.3 cm in diameter. So in 1850, that astrophotographer printed a
detailed 1:1,000,000 scale lunar map of that region.

Today, we can download a 1:1,000,000 scale lunar map of that region by
printing the following doc at 30"x30" page size:
[http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/images/Lunar/lac_58_wac.pd...](http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/images/Lunar/lac_58_wac.pdf)

Then, for apples-to-apples, you can trim Copernicus out of the modern print in
a 13 x 16.5 cm rectangle.

Voila, a 160-year A-B of knowledge and techniques. :)

(Someone fix my math if it's off.)

~~~
DanBC
> Copernicus is 93 km in diameter.

With a big enough computer the mapping data could be imported into Minecraft.

([http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/992750-mapping-using-
rea...](http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/992750-mapping-using-real-world-
terrain-data/))

Sticking to one MC block = 1 metre would be tricky with 93 km. And there might
be hight limit problems too.

------
josephcooney
I found the one simply entitled 'after'
amusing....[http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/images/enlarge/00076101...](http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/images/enlarge/00076101.JPG)

------
ghubbard
They've not made the images Public Domain. It is part of an "Open Content
Program" and usage must be credited.

[http://www.getty.edu/about/opencontentfaq.html#usingimages](http://www.getty.edu/about/opencontentfaq.html#usingimages)

~~~
cowsandmilk
No, you are incorrect, quoting from that page:

Are there copyright restrictions for the Getty's open content images?

No. The first release includes 4,600 images of works of art believed to be in
the public domain—in other words, works not protected by copyright under U.S.
law. The Getty does not claim copyright in digital images of public domain
artworks.

------
justincormack
Many of them look like they are out of copyright anyway, although not all.

~~~
aw3c2
The original might be out of copyright but any whoever scanned/photographed
them has a new copyright. Pretty silly.

~~~
rogerhoward
Not (necessarily) true, though a little unsettled.

Ever since Bridgeman
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.))
most museums have accepted that no matter how much effort goes into the
imaging, some imaging simply does not qualify as novel enough to warrant new
copyright. This ruling is, as I understand it, not actually binding in other
districts, but it's generally accepted.

Because imaging of flat art, without a frame, is inherently intended to add as
_little_ interpretation as possible, it's generally accepted that reproduction
imaging of 2D art is not copyrightable. This is the Getty's own position (I
worked there until a few months ago, from the same department that brought
this project out).

Any other questions I can answer about this project I will.

~~~
jedahan
Yeah, and it gets even weirder when you start learning about representations
of 3d art. Photos of non-flat art do renew that copyright right? But what
precedent exists re: 3D scans of objects in a collection? We share what we
can, which right now is limited to 123D catch generated models, up on
[http://thingiverse.com/met](http://thingiverse.com/met) .

Disclosure: I work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and am trying my hardest
to share all our data with the world, but have learned that what is legal and
what is museum policy can and often do clash. Its super interesting.

If you want relatively low resolution images of our collection, feel free to
visit [http://scrAPI.org](http://scrAPI.org) , which just scrapes our live
site. Its a workaround until our policy changes.

Roger, how was working for Getty while you were there? Was this your main
project? How supportive where those involved in sharing the data? If
hackernews isn't the most appropriate place to answer these questions, I'd be
glad if you could take the time to go off-site for a conversation.

------
cldr
Those manuscript pages (like
[http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=30...](http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=305961)
and
[http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=48...](http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=4820)
and
[http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=59...](http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=5936))
are some of the most beautiful pages I've ever seen. I wish I could read those
letters, and old French.

~~~
jacobparker
This is a stretch, but this might amuse you (or anyone looking at this
thread): [http://www.amazon.com/Six-Books-Euclid-Werner-
Oechslin/dp/38...](http://www.amazon.com/Six-Books-Euclid-Werner-
Oechslin/dp/3836517752/ref=pd_sim_b_23) (not an affiliate link) Some more
information:
[http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/classics/all/06724...](http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/classics/all/06724/facts.byrne_six_books_of_euclid.htm)

Check the sample pages. This is a (very good) reproduction of the original,
you can read about the history of it online/in Amazon reviews.

------
diggan
Tried to find a API to access these images but can't seem to find any. Anyone
know if there is any API?

~~~
rogerhoward
No API - I worked on one last year, but twas never released. Hoping to see
something within the year - not just for images, but also collection data
(object records, for instance).

Many other institutions have open APIs for their collection data, and often
for images as well. See:

Cooper-Hewitt (data released on github) Brooklyn Museum (API) Powerhouse
Museum (API) Rijksmuseum Indianapolis Museum of Art (also data on github)
Europeana (a EU-wide consortium) DPLA (similar to Europeana, but in the US)

Also, lots of other institutions have open access to their images - many much
more comprehensive than The Getty (not to sound bitter, but Getty is getting a
lot of press for this where others have lead for years). It's really an
imperative at this point - and for most institutions more a matter of when
(since few have substantial technical staff) than if. The Getty is an
exception, having a large, well-funded staff, but tends to be conservative in
policy changes.

For other examples of cultural institutions sharing images widely:

National Gallery (high rez) Los Angeles County Museum of Art The Met

All this just off the top of my head -

~~~
greeneggs
From what I can see, it is still pretty rare to release downloadable images at
a decent resolution, so it is excellent that Getty is getting good press for
this.

For example, the National Gallery has high-resolution scans, but they aren't
downloadable (perhaps you can scrape them, but that isn't accessible to most
people). LACMA has only low-resolution images.

Off the rest of your list, Rijksmuseum and the Brooklyn Museum have only low-
resolution images, Cooper-Hewitt and Europeana have almost nothing (only very
low-resolution). I haven't checked everything.

Maybe you are right that it is becoming more common, but I can't see that
myself. The Met is the only example I know of that compares. The Met does have
decent resolution downloads available, but the Getty's downloadable scans are
still much better.

------
wildmXranat
Like others have already mentioned, I'll wait for a torrent link and bulk D/L
all of them.

------
kfury
These seem to be very low resolution (~500px). Are there high resolutions
available? I tried finding one for Van Gogh's 'Irises' and couldn't.

~~~
mashmac2
Yeah, the download of Irises is only 998x768 px.

And many of the others are similarly sized, almost all I've looked at under
1000px in either direction.

~~~
benjarrell
Large version here:
[http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=94...](http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=947)

------
tannerc
It's surprising how many waves this announcement has made over the last few
days.

My question is: why now? What took so long?

