The privitization of infohttps://modelshipworld.com/topic/28964-the-privitization-of-information/rmation

[brunelrussell]

Brunelrussell here in carmudgeon mode:  I'm always interested in Civil War blockade runners and there is an article out about the Denbigh, which is being studied off the coast of Galveston, Texas by three of the people involved, but I can't even read it because, for reasons unknown, you have to list an institution in order to be allowed the privilege.  What's wrong with being a private  individual?  The company which owns the publication   is Elsevier, who are bad 

about paywalling their articles; I've had the same problem with them concerning paleontological journals.  Unless it's proprietary or otherwise 'sensitive' I believe that information should be freely available to all and not just another marketable commodity.  So there.

 

 

[Stevinne]

Sorry, as a former newspaper employee who has seen what "free" information has done to outlets, I can't agree. I now work for a company that charges a bundle for the information we provide. I'm better paid, have better benefits and our customers seem happy, since our profits are rising. Meanwhile, take a look at your local newspaper and compare it to the size and amount of news that had been provided 20 or 30 years ago. That's the impact of everyone wanting everything for free. Gathering and publishing credible information costs money. There is an amazing amount of free information available on the Web, we are extraordinarily lucky to have access to it. But generating information isn't free.

I think I should be able to walk into my local Mercedes dealership and drive off with what I want, but unfortunately, Mercedes won't let me. Information is just as valuable. 

You're lucky - even though the Post & Courier has cut back a bit, it still has high aspirations and a good amount of content.  

Edited June 3, 2021 by Stevinne

[Keithbrad80]

It’s likely the study is still ongoing and their conclusions haven’t been made yet, because of this the information will continue to be sensitive until the report is written. They don’t want private citizens interfering with a study that a university likely paid a lot to do, so it makes that only other institutions can access that information, you may have to wait until the study is published. 
 

Bradley

[tlevine]

Despite what is expected by a large number of people, information is not free.  Academic journals and most professional journals require a paid subscription to access published information.  In fact, I would not trust the content of any free access journal.  Those journals are called throwaways for a reason.  

[dcicero]

2 hours ago, brunelrussell said:

"...you have to list an institution in order to be allowed the privilege.  What's wrong with being a private  individual?"

 

I suspect institutions -- libraries, universities, etc. -- pay for access for their members, so if you can demonstrate that you're associated with one, you can get in.  I suspect, if you contacted the publisher, they would either sell you the article you're interested in or direct you to an institution that would loan it to you.

 

Particularly on technical subjects, I expect to pay for good information.  We subscribe to a data service at work that costs a fortune.  Every year I have to answer questions about how much value we get from it and every year we renew that subscription.  The people who run that service earn every penny of it.

 

 

Dan

[Stevinne]

2 hours ago, dcicero said:

 

I suspect institutions -- libraries, universities, etc. -- pay for access for their members, so if you can demonstrate that you're associated with one, you can get in. 

You should definitely check your library - they might have online access to the journal for patrons. It amazes me all the online resources my library has - every thing from language lessons to newspaper archives to obscure movie services, there's a chance yours will have access to this one.

[Roger Pellett]

Yes but,

If a private company is doing and paying for the excavation and studying I agree the information belongs to them.

 

On the other hand, projects of this type are often done by Universities and other “non profit” entities that rely on grants.  These grants often come directly or indirectly from from State and Federal Governments.  In these cases the public has already paid for the information.  For example, Texas A&M University’s Nautical Archeology Department publishes high end and expensive books for those who want to buy them but also makes much of their research available free in digital form.

 

Roger Pellett

 

 

[BANYAN]

Hi all, there may be a subtle differentiation that needs some further discussion here?  I approach this as an amateur researcher looking for info about mid-19th century equipment and maritime matters.  

 

I fully agree that any NEW Information/data developed by a company or individual can (should) attract a fee (nobody expects to work for nothing).  However, I am now experiencing examples where some companies/individuals are trying to charge for information and imagery that they have not developed themselves, nor improved, and in many cases the source data/information is out of copyright and often freely available - if you are patient and prepared to dig further. 

 

One example is the imagery company 'Alamy'  whom seem to try and grab whatever image they can and charge for it?  This comment may be a little different from brunnellrussell's intention, and again I reiterate that any information/data resulting from a company/individual that is their work, by all means charge.  If value adding to existing information has been done, then again, a fee is understandable (as long as it is reasonable) and the user will soon determine whether the company/individual is charging for good or poor quality information. 

 

What I do not agree with is for companies and individuals grabbing info that was/ and should be free, then charging for it having done NO work to improve it.

 

My whinge over, I'll get off my soap box.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Roger Pellett]

Pat,

 

I agree 100%.  Writing and getting my book about whaleback ships published was my first introduction to copyright procedures.  Fortunately I had the expert help of a retired librarian .  The book itself is copyrighted and if anyone wants to own it they have to buy a copy.  The majority of illustrations in the book though are in the public domain so anyone should be able to use them.  We were, however, advised to get permission to publish them from the library that held them in their collection.  Very confusing.

 

Roger

[Jaager]

4 hours ago, BANYAN said:

However, I am now experiencing examples where some companies/individuals are trying to charge for information and imagery that they have not developed themselves, nor improved, and in many cases the source data/information is out of copyright and often freely available -

If I were to work at it, I am pretty sure  that I could find more than a few examples of  an individual or company making money for providing a quick and easy solution - usually for more money than is deserved - by bundling freely available information or materials.  P.T. Barnum's  quip about the impossibility of under estimating taste probably rates a laziness corollary.

As for the greed of journal publishers, in the dusty corners of my memory, I recall something about journals requiring scientists having to pay a journal to publish a scientific paper and then having an absurd subscription fee for anyone else to read it.  The broad circulation and prestige journals are probably free of publication charges, but the competition for acceptance makes them not suitable for the publish or perish game.  Fits with the scam of a university confiscating 50% of every grant for services.

 

[Nirvana]

9 hours ago, tlevine said:

Despite what is expected by a large number of people, information is not free.  Academic journals and most professional journals require a paid subscription to access published information. 

 

One of the reason I am a member of NRG to get accurate information regarding ship models and ship history.
Thank you Toni and team for making a great magazine.

[Cathead]

I work as an editor helping non-native-speaking scientists improve their scientific writing and get their research published in international journals, most of which are in English these days. I've helped papers get published in over 100 peer-reviewed journals from major publishing houses, so have a fair amount of experience with this aspect of the publishing world.

 

It can cost thousands of dollars for a scientist to get a research paper published, whether or not the journal is open-access. And if it isn't, it can still cost the public a quite high fee to access that research unless they have a subscription, which usually means they're part of a major research institution themselves as the cost is way above what individuals are likely to pay. Which usually means that journalists and the public are mostly locked out of what's actually happening in science. I find this extremely problematic.

 

That being said, it also really does cost money to publish a journal. Journals get inundated with submissions, all of which have to be reviewed and responded to. Much of this gets sloughed off onto unpaid peer reviewers (another abuse in the system) but there's still a lot of in-house work. Expecting anything to be free requires defining where you expect the money to come from, because there is no such thing as free. If it's not publishing and subscription fees, then where? Donations or sponsorships? That puts you in conflict-of-interest territory. Government funding? Kind of the same thing. There's no one clear answer in a world where people increasingly expect information to be free online but either aren't willing to pay for it or haven't figured out the right model for paying for it.

 

I do tend toward thinking the current journal publishing model is on the scam side of the spectrum, especially where some of the big corporate publishers are involved, but it's a very complex system overall without easy answers.

[mtaylor]

Well said, Eric.  In the past as tech writer I did my share of re-writing and editing research papers on a free-lance basis.  Also did tech research papers for various companies involved in research.  Luckily, I didn't have to review, just incorporate new data, etc.  You're right about no such thing as a free-lunch. If it really is free, it's usually worth what you paid for it.

[Literalman]

Some materials are free and worth it, but I'd like to point out that U.S. Govt. publications and photos are issued without copyright. The Naval History and Heritage Command, for example, has information that may be useful to some modelers. As someone who spent decades in publishing, I agree that good work usually has to be paid for. A long while back I saw a proposal for micropayments to view articles and news. It seemed like a good idea to me. Pay 10 or 15 cents to view a news story. I would do it. I think that unless you're on a really tight budget you would pay it without counting the cost. But most paywalled news sources want you to sign up for a subscription.

[brunelrussell]

brunelrussell weighing in: Somehow or other, some scientific publishers do manage to provide free-access articles, for example PLOSOne and Paleontologoca Polonica.  I still think it's a ripoff, but then I'm not a capitalist.  Oh, hi Keithbrad80.  The article in question is in the journal The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, volume 30, issue 2, December 2001, pp. 231-249.  I've also found it on several other web sites, all with the same proviso.  I blush to admit that I don't know what a URL is; I haven't gotten over the telephone yet.  If you can help I'd be plumb grateful.

[mtaylor]

Brunel.... URL is the Uniform Resource Locator which is the websites name usually.   Thus, the URL of MSW is modelshipworld.com.

[Cathead]

10 hours ago, brunelrussell said:

Somehow or other, some scientific publishers do manage to provide free-access articles, for example PLOSOne and Paleontologoca Polonica

Reread my first post. Open Access is becoming increasing popular for publishers because it's good PR, but the cost just gets shifted elsewhere, such as higher fees for scientists (which suppresses publication by those without sufficient funding) or through sponsorships (which introduces conflicts of interest). 

 

Don't be fooled by thinking that "free" equals "virtuous". There's always a catch.

[wefalck]

Well, as others have said already, there is no such thing as a free lunch (or very rarely so).

 

However, in my 35+ years of experience as (natural) scientific writer, peer-reviewer, corporate editor for an UN organisation and proof-reading editor for the German equivalent of the NRJ, I observe a change in the scientific publishing world. In the old days, when everything was printed, the publishing houses financed themselves through the subscription fees for their journals. Depending on the type of journal, for the most part subscriptions were taken out by (university) libraries or scientific institutions (through their respective libraries). To some degree, private individuals also took out subscriptions in order to have their private copies. For instance I had for several years subscriptions to Nature and Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta. The latter is published by the American Geochemical Society and part of the membership fee goes to financing the journal. The same system applies to many journals that are published by associations, e.g. NRJ or our German LOGBUCH. Journals also offered extra copies of their articles to authors as separate bindings against a (sometimes quite hefty) fee.

 

Over here in Europe, universities and research institutions are usually funded by tax payers' money, so it us all, who finance the publication of scientific journals. This means the cost are distributed over millions of people so that the scientific world has this tool of exchange of knowledge. It is is a kind of mutualisation, as eventually the whole society will profit in one way or the other from the knowledge generated.

 

Over the past three decades or so there has been a game change in the scientific publishing world and it has become more like 'real' commercial publishing houses, with increasing pressure to increase returns on investment, while some of the university-run publishing houses may have run on cost-covering margins only. This of course led to an increase of subscription fees. One should think that the transition to e-publishing with no printing, binding and mailing costs the subscription fees should have gone down, but that does not seem to be the case. In fact many journals started to charge the authors fees for publishing their work, while in the past this was mostly free or you had to pay only for fancy extras (e.g. colour photographs). 

 

As the funding for public institutions in the wake of Reagonomics/Thatcherism and due to shifting societal priorities was gone down, many (university) libraries had to become very selective with respect ot journal subscriptions. This made access to some journals or for people at smaller institutions difficult. However, there was/is always the option for distance loans or reprints of articles that these libraries offered for only a nominal fee. To counteract this problem, the European Commission requires from all its participants in research projects funded by them, that the work is either published in free-access journals or that you budget-in the cost of publishing in some high-flying journals.

 

Peer-review is the traditional quality assurance mechanism in science. It is done on a sort of tit-for-tat basis, assuming that the whole scientific community participates in it: you invest your time in reviewing a paper, while your colleagues invested their time to review your papers. While it is normally anonymously to help towards impartiality and avoid bad feelings between individuals, it is also a way to improve your standing in the scientific world. And it is a way of learning and gaining knowledge before everyone else. However, the system now becomes a bit undermined by obscure on-line publishing houses, who charge everyone, authors and readers, but expect the peer-review to be carried out for free - I frequently get such requests from Asia ...

 

Finally to the access to 'old' information. Of course, anything on which there is no copyright anymore is in principle free to access and use. However, the instiutions that hold this information (books, photographs, drawings, works of art, etc.) have costs and it costs them money to give you access to it. So it is understandable, that they have to charge you a fee in order to cover these costs. Again here comes the problem of diminishing funding for public institutions. While in the past this was seen as a common good and service to the whole society that in consequence was paid out of taxes, since the 1980s the paradigm shifted towards the idea that the 'actual' users should pay - which resulted in exorbitant fees (compare the pre-1985 fees for copies form the NMM in Greewich with todays fees ...), making this information rather difficult access.

 

And then there are also those black sheep who exploit the laziness or ignorance of people by garnering information for free and trying to sell it. There is nothing wrong with companies that do information collection for you against a fee, but often they then pretend that they hold the copyright ...

 

[Vane]

As a former researcher and also a semiprofessional photographer, the problem I have is the Magazines/Journals always want content for free but only give "exposure" in return and that deal sucks. The used to hand out at least a printed copy for free but that is going away also. 

My advice would be that you contact the author directly if you wish to read an article. They wrote it for free and want to have "exposure" so they will often just send it to you if you ask for it.  

[glbarlow]

As a photographer it makes my skin crawl for people to expect to use my images for free, even worse when they say they’ll give me “photo credit” and that I should appreciate the publicity of their use of my image would provide. There is a Google search photographers can use to find mis-appropriation of my copyright. I found an English travel agency using my images to sell travel to Iceland. I sent them a bill, they replied with the photo credit thing and “offered” to remove the photo, which of course I told them to do.

 

Bottom line, content isn’t free. Just because people post images on Instagram or post on line news articles doesn’t mean it’s free.  My experience is photography, but the same is true for written content.  As someone noted expecting content to be free is why magazines are gone and newspapers not far behind. If your interested in something, word or image, you should be willing to pay the creator for the privilege of accessing it. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by glbarlow

[Nirvana]

Glenn, 

I know exactly what you are referring to.

Lately I have become careful of what type of pictures I upload, but if I do upload a high-resolution picture I make sure it has a watermark.

With a link for anyone that want to purchase the picture with removed watermark.

[glbarlow]

I appreciate your doing that, it’s considerate.  Every photograph I take, as do most photographers, has the copyright and contact information embedded in the metadata. It’s easy to access with common software which every publishing agency would know.  As an aside I can remove a watermark in Photoshop without any trace in about 30 seconds. Of course I wouldn’t do that, but the art thieves often do just that.

[Joe100]

This sort of thing pops up in the warship research world with unpublished photographs. Years ago, I started collecting photos of Kriegsmarine ships before they somehow became “cool”. I amassed a modest yet important collection of unpublished originals. The cream would be images of Graf Spee at the Battle of the River Plate. I’ll answer any questions about the photos, but I won’t share them electronically. If an author wanted to see them, they’d have to come to my home and view them in person. In the past I’ve worked on a half-dozen KM book projects as a subject matter expert in one area or another, and none have made the trip.

 

Nowadays, the Kriegsmarine has gone from a subject of genuine interest to something extraordinary cliché. To me at least. I can’t be bothered in most cases anymore and I’ve even considered liquidating my collection of KM photos and artifacts. These days I’m much more interested in the Great War, and the ships built prior. 
 

Sadly however, all this stuff costs real money in the end, and letting out into the world for free simply isn’t in the cards for some of us.