[JMorgan]

Bob, I agree, but I think if you allow those fact checkers to eventually develop a degree of expertise in a category, the grey areas become less grey over time.  

Of course, that's not to say that in an entry, one couldn't note that several possible explanations exist for a particular issue if there is ambiguity.  That's why you have "fact checker" meetings or supervisory "executive" guidance from someone with a good understanding of USGA history -- to make a call one way or another.

[TEPaul]

Bob and others:

Thanks for the explanations of the WIKIPEDIA process and structure and thanks Bob for the J.S. Mill notion. Maybe I look for some solutions at this point that are too perfect and too theoretical simply because I'm not that familiar with some of the specifics and details of this whole computer information world. I sure don't want to make any "either/or" suggestions at this point, if you know what I mean.

Sure, there are a ton of obstacles in all kinds of areas, copyright, technically digitizing, the costs, whatever, but I believe that all problems have solutions somewhere and the point is if an organization like the USGA really does want to get behind something like this and they understand the extent of it which I think they do, they will do it if they feel it will be of enough service in the things they do and are interested in.

With the complexity and extent of copyright checking and such that very issue came up in our first meeting which seems like about three years ago now. A USGA lawyer came along to the meeting and she didn't say anything for about the first hour as we pitched our idea on this kind of thing.

Then she piped up and said: "For my part you should be aware that we will probably need to process every item for copyright permission or clearance."

At that point I said something like: "Oh no, does that mean that this can't be done because that will be so overwhelming?"

She said: "No, not really, I'm just telling you what it means for my part but if the USGA wants to get behind this then it will all be done eventually."

[Peter Pallotta]

Some random thoughts:

I might be misunderstanding, but aren't we talking about two separate sections of the archive?

One is the currently archived/available/housed historical information (articles, photos); and the second would be a soon-to-be-created 'resource centre' for new contributions/donations and on-going research.  

Do both sections need to be structured/organized along the same lines?  

The first section is massive and 'authoritative' (if for no other reason than it's 'historcial'); but that the second section could be whatever (and whatever size) the USGA wants, i.e. it could be authoritative or speculative; it could be a simple catch-all resource for whomever was interested in searching or contribution (with a 'buyer beware' disclaimer), or a USGA- run 'experts forum' where contributions are 'open' for discussion/corrections/minority opinions until they get locked (by the USGA librarian) and added to the first section, i.e. the archive.  

Also, a question -- are 'finances' at all an issue here? Does the USGA want or need at least some sections of the archive to be a revenue stream? (I'm thinking of the NY Times' archive of articles dating back to the 1840s; I think $14.95  allows you to search for, find, and download 100 articles a month.) I'm not saying I'd like to pay fees for research (I'm sure no one would), but just wondering if thought has been given to the possible need to make the archive in part self-financing, especially if it needs to be done absolutely right, and be self-sustaining.  

Also, on the copyright issue (which I'm guessing will became an increasingly important issue in direct proportion to the success and growth and use of the archive): wow, it seems to me a really complex issue, and one that might require -- in some instances at least -- the USGA to be prepared to become an 'agent' for copywritten materials.   But I'm way out of my league here....just some guesswork

Peter  

[Adam Clayman]

Don't know if this will be helpful, but, I did see some muckity muck from Wikipedia state that theres a process for people to challenge the accuracy of any posting from the crowd.

In this way, you could have the openness of everyone with an ability to contribute and only have to confirm the challenged material.

[TEPaul]

I should also mention some real background on this kind of initiative (I hope the USGA doesn't mind that being mentioned on here at this point. I doubt they would since it seems like the green light has certainly been put on now by all involved).

As far as I can tell the USGA had been thinking about something like this basically because they had been receiving more and more requests for architectural information (I think they said architectural information requests had become the biggest item asked of the USGA Museum/Library Committee). So this kind of thing was definitely beginning to get their attention in-house.

They were also certainly aware that research access to their printed matter and such of all types, particularly very old stuff, had basically become almost completely static. The reasons for that were both practical and preservative---eg too much physical handling of much of their old material is very damaging and very quickly.

Add to all this some pretty interesting timing! They had decided they wanted to take their "collectibles" to NYC and hence the purchase of the Russian Tee Room.

The basic reasons for that is that Golf House where their "Collectibles" are housed is a very beautiful building but it was basically a disaster with climate control and they had started to watch their "Collectibles" (old clubs and balls and such which are some of the most interesting and valuable and extensive in the world) fall apart right in front of their eyes.

They also wanted to increase foot traffic for their "Collectibles" and they figured NYC would do that for them many factors more than Far Hills ever could.

I think back then they (the USGA Museum/Library) looked at both their "collectibles" and most all their historic printed matter in their library (which has been for some years now in the new building beside Golf House) as sort of one and the same thing.

Now, I believe they look at their "Collectibles" (basically the old balls and implements and such) as one item called "Collectibles" and all that's in their library as "Information". At that point, I think a pretty important distinction was made and things began to evolve from that.

This was before we had any idea of going to them with the idea of something like this.

So where did we get this idea? Wayne Morrison can deny or confirm it but my recollection is the idea came at first from abroad---from England's Mark Rowlinson, a member of this website.

Mark wrote a memo and sent it to Ran at some point. Later he mentioned it to us. I think Mark thought GOLFCLUBATLAS.com may be able to do it somehow but obviously this is a really big investment and this site sure can't handle that.

Mark thought perhaps some University somewhere may be interested in it and at that point my recollection is that Wayne and I said to him who better, who more visible and who more capable of something like this, as well as perhaps inherently interested in it, than the USGA?

And so we asked for a meeting and got it.

In retrospect it was all some pretty interesting timing.

[JMorgan]

I should also mention some real background on this kind of initiative (I hope the USGA doesn't mind that being mentioned on here at this point. I doubt they would since it seems like the green light has certainly been put on now by all involved).

As far as I can tell the USGA had been thinking about something like this basically because they had been receiving more and more requests for architectural information (I think they said architectural information requests had become the biggest item asked of the USGA Museum/Library Committee). So this kind of thing was definitely beginning to get their attention in-house.

They were also certainly aware that research access to their printed matter and such of all types, particularly very old stuff, had basically become almost completely static. The reasons for that were both practical and preservative---eg too much physical handling of much of their old material is very damaging and very quickly.

Add to all this some pretty interesting timing! They had decided they wanted to take their "collectibles" to NYC and hence the purchase of the Russian Tee Room.

The basic reasons for that is that Golf House where their "Collectibles" are housed is a very beautiful building but it was basically a disaster with climate control and they had started to watch their "Collectibles" (old clubs and balls and such which are some of the most interesting and valuable and extensive in the world) fall apart right in front of their eyes.

They also wanted to increase foot traffic for their "Collectibles" and they figured NYC would do that for them many factors more than Far Hills ever could.

I think back then they (the USGA Museum/Library) looked at both their "collectibles" and most all their historic printed matter in their library (which has been in the new building beside Golf House) as sort of one and the same thing.

Now, I believe they look at their "Collectibles" (basically the old balls and implements and such) as one item called "Collectibles" and all that's in their library as "Information". At that point, I think a pretty important distinction was made and things began to evolve from that.

This was before we had any idea of going to them with the idea of something like this.

So where did we get this idea? Wayne Morrison can deny or confirm it but my recollection is the idea came at first from abroad---from England's Mark Rowlinson, a member of this website.

Mark wrote a memo and sent it to Ran at some point. Later he mentioned it to us. I think Mark thought GOLFCLUBATLAS.com may be able to do it somehow but obviously this is a really big investment and this site sure can't handle that.

Mark thought perhaps some University somewhere may be interested in it and at that point my recollection is that Wayne and I said to him who better, who more visible and who more capable of something like this, as well as perhaps inherently interested in it, than the USGA?

And so we asked for a meeting and got it.

In retrospect it was all some pretty interesting timing.

Kudos to Mark.

[TEPaul]

"Kudos to Mark."

That is probably true.

On the other hand, at this point, I have no real idea where this would all be if the USGA had just done it on their own emanating from their desire to solve these problems long before we all came along.

There's no denying this was not a brand new idea to them. Their Museum/Library director, Rand Jerris, is really good---really really good (he happens to just love classic architecture too) and there's no question he'd been thinking along these lines but for how long, I'm not aware right now.

And it may be hard to ever overestimate the importance of the chairman of the USGA Museum/Library committee who may want to remain nameless at this point. My sense is that his vision and ability to generate interest and resources for the entire USGA Museum/library entity which is a whole lot bigger and more extensive than just this Architecture Archive thing is the key to all of this. Just the idea as well as the actual planning and construction of the new Arnold Palmer History Center is a multi-million dollar undertaking. So, in the larger sense the chairman of the committee and Rand Jerris and his staff may've been at the same point with this architecture archive as it is now. Add to that the work of his ad hoc committee on everything to do with the USGA Museum/Library going way back---from the concept and purchase of the Russian Tea Room to the decision to dump that and do the Arnold Palmer History Center at the USGA headquarters at Far Hills. Add to that the indefatiguable work of our "work group" or ad hoc committee leader Craigerino Ammerman.

But for us, me and Wayne, and some of the others on here and elsewhere who've been involved with it but were not in some way previous to it involved with the USGA, I doubt we'd have been involved at all or even involved in the idea of it if it hadn't been for Mark Rowlinson.

Some pretty interesting timing it all has been.


And now, it would be good to hear some more ideas, opinions and suggestions of what-all this thing could someday be and do, as well as how.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I'll add that Bob Crosby also sent a letter to the USGA some years ago with a similar idea.  I don't know whether Bob's preceded Mark's or not but I do know that Bob was in on this pretty early and has been a big help (along ever since.  I do remember our chat with Mark and you at your house and that we both strongly suggested that the USGA was the rightful place to get this initiative going.  

Shortly after Mark's visit, I got a questionnaire from the USGA and in the suggestion box I hand wrote that they should begin a golf architecture archive and research center at the USGA headquarters.  It wasn't much after that point when I got a call from Rand Jerris (whom Tom and I got to know from the Flynn collection of materials and research we were doing) asking for a meeting to follow up with the proposal to have the USGA organize an archive and research center.  Naturally Tom and I went as a team and sat for several hours with Rand, David Normoyle and the chief counsel.  Tom, Bob, Dunlop and others both inside and outside the USGA have done a terrific job keeping the concept going.  The USGA really got behind this issue and were willing to put up the resources needed to see the project to completion.  We were notified recently that it was approved.  The USGA should be commended for taking on this daunting task and doing so the right way.

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul,

I'm surprised that the USGA lawyer indicated that they are actually going to try to wade through all the copyright mess, what a daunting task they are commiting themselves to!  Thanks to Disney buying off members of Congress and extending the copyright term everytime Mickey Mouse is in danger of becoming public domain about a half dozen times in the past few decades stuff that is under copyright today is quite likely to remain under copyright essentially forever.

So while everything written before 1923 or whatever exactly is the cutoff date is now irrevocably public domain, there is so much written after that date which would be useful for research for whom the copyright owners will probably never be tracked down.  All those defunct magazines from the 20s and 30s, books with authors who have no heirs and publishers that went out of business 50 years ago.  None of that will ever be able to be (legally) reproduced, because there is no provision in the law for abandoned works.

[TEPaul]

Doug:

I hear you but you're talking to the wrong guy here. I generally try not to wade into things and areas I just don't understand well and copyright is one of them.

I only hope it's not something that creates too much of an obstacle to this USGA Architecture Archive as the intent of it is simply to do something good for the game and those that like it.

On the other hand, if somebody out there somewhere wants to take advantage of the USGA and its archive and filtch stuff off its Internet site and attempt to commercialize it for gain it would surprise me if the USGA would not be prepared to go after them legally.

Over the years the USGA almost never takes the part of the plaintiff unless they think someone is using and abusing their work product in ways they do not agree with.

On copyright questions in this vein Bob Crosby is your man. He understands that area a couple of thousand percent better than I do.

[BCrosby]

Doug -

You are right, there are a number of copyright issues. But the USGA archive/library is not the first to have dealt with them. The issues are ones that other archives, libraries and museums have handled in different ways over the years. There are lots of precedents. The USGA itself has dealt with the issues for decades with its existing collections of photos, drawings, etc. So I'm pretty confident that protocols for architectural materials can be worked out to the satisfaction of the parties.

The goal of the archive is (a) to preserve significant historic items that would otherwise be destroyed or lost and (b) to provide a resource for researchers. The USGA has no commercial objectives - direct or indirect - for the materials.  


Bob

[Doug Siebert]

BCrosby,

I realize the USGA has no commercial intent here, and they themselves aren't copying anything but merely preserving items they own or have been donated or loaned to them.  The difficulty will occur when those doing research want to use these materials.  If they are made available over the Internet, that would be a copyright violation that the USGA would be liable for.

Granted, for items where the author and publisher are long gone there isn't going to be anyone coming after them, but given that the USGA probably has more than its share of lawyers about (I'm talking in the exec committee etc., not just the ones on its staff paid to be lawyers) they probably aren't going to want even a hint of impropriety.

Google is trying to work out a way to scan and make all books, even those still under copyright, searchable.  Publishers and authors already are screaming even before they see how Google is going to do it, they say it would only show a page or two around the stuff you find in your search so it wouldn't be possible to download the whole book.  But copyright owners would like to stamp out the 'fair use' exceptions in copyright law as well.  But Google has deep pockets so if anyone can fund lawyers to beat the copyright lobby, they can.  Maybe the USGA should just give all their material to Google to make available on the Internet

This is more just me bitching about how screwed up the US copyright law is more than anything else.  Copyright law in the Constitution was quite reasonable but things have got out of hand in the last 50 years.  If libraries had not yet been invented, I'm sure the lobbyists would have them made illegal when someone opened the first one.

[TEPaul]

BobC:

In view of what Doug Siebert just said and considering the fact that more people just may be reading something like this on here (or will) than we suspect, can you give us a brief thumbnail sketch of what kind of copyright check the USGA may do on any of these items that will be put on the USGA's Architecture Archive website and how you think it might hold up under various circumstances?

In other words, what exactly is "a copyright check" the USGA may be running on this stuff?

Is it basically through the Library of Congress and that kind of thing? Where else would the USGA (or anyone else) look to do copyright checks and basically establish some kind of cover in the use of materials?

What if they checked in the usual places (L o C) for instance, and no copyright showed up and they used it and somebody came out of the woodwork and claimed copyright protection?

How does the copyright laws and procedures and precedences look at something like that?

I hate to say this but I don't believe the USGA or anyone else attempting to do what they're about to do in this vein is that interested in estimating the AMOUNT of times people might come after them on copyright protection issues, I'd think they'd want to protect themselves from ANYONE ever being able to come after them and potentially win some kind of expensive copyright suit.

This initiative will not have a mega budget just to set the thing up, so I sure do hope it will not need to have some legal fund set aside too if this kind of thing happens even once or twice.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Doug's questions have arisen largely because it is now so easy to download entire copyrighted works on the internet and then distribute them instantly to millions of people. That is, essentially, the issue raised by the Google library project. The same issue was/is raised by Napster. My guess is that it will transform the music industry. It will probably also transform the publishing business.

The law needs to catch up with technology. How it will do that is not clear. Maybe the "fair use doctrine" doesn't make sense with current technology.

But these are not new issues. They have have been around for more than a decade. Take university libraries. Their collections of periodicals (and some books) are accessible now on a full text basis by students and faculty through university internets. All that raises the same issues. Web versions of newspapers and magazines raise the same issues.

The bottom line is that the intersection of copyright law and the internet raises issues that are much bigger than the USGA. Neither the USGA nor any other archive or museum will be able to resolve them all as a precondition to proceeding with their missions. The best anyone can do currently is to be vigilant and limit (with software) the ability to reproduce digitalized materials until the rules become more clear.

Bob  
 

[Tony_Muldoon]

One of the things the web would be ideal for is an updated list of Architectural Credits by course.   I.e. a complete revision of C &W.


The benefits of having it on the web

-   You could have drop down info saying what the info is based on.

-        You could do searches to order the material.

E.g. Find Ross, Connecticut.

Or even use it to develop a time line of how an architect’s work progressed.

It would need work to decide who did what, when and it would also need a committment to update but I think it would become a basic research tool.  GCA.com would be a good source for updates/corrections.

[BCrosby]

Tony -

An excellent idea. It has been discussed. It would indeed require a lot of work, but I think it would be worth it.

Updating C&W has come up several times here at GCA. There is no question the book needs to be more current. There are also some errors that ought to be cleaned up.

Just thinking about those projects brings home the extraordinary work C&W did the first time around. It still amazes me. All before computers. We are in their debt.

Bob

[Tony_Muldoon]

Just thinking about those projects brings home the extraordinary work C&W did the first time around. It still amazes me. All before computers. We are in their debt.

Bob

Bob I couldn't agree more.

If anyone has not seen the book they can't appreciate the work that went into it.   It seems to me they really tried to list all courses and designers upto that point. There are thousands of entries by course name and then listed by Architect.  All this research was done before internet websearches and emails.  From what I can gather when they were doing their research there was very little interest in even the ‘great’ old dead guys, and they knew they had to get past value judgments and be as inclusive and international as possible.  Staggering.

[BCrosby]

Tony -

People forget that the first chapter of C&W is a terrific history of golf architecture. It's an added bonus to the raw data that the book contains.

I happened to reread that chapter the other night. I had forgotten how good it is. In the last paragraph they mention that there are couple of young architects showing promise. Some guys named Doak, Coore and Crenshaw and others.

Bob

[Doug Siebert]

BobC:

In view of what Doug Siebert just said and considering the fact that more people just may be reading something like this on here (or will) than we suspect, can you give us a brief thumbnail sketch of what kind of copyright check the USGA may do on any of these items that will be put on the USGA's Architecture Archive website and how you think it might hold up under various circumstances?

In other words, what exactly is "a copyright check" the USGA may be running on this stuff?

Is it basically through the Library of Congress and that kind of thing? Where else would the USGA (or anyone else) look to do copyright checks and basically establish some kind of cover in the use of materials?

What if they checked in the usual places (L o C) for instance, and no copyright showed up and they used it and somebody came out of the woodwork and claimed copyright protection?

Tom,

The "copyright search" you mention is particularly problematic because there is no longer any need to register copyright with anyone.  If you created it, you own the copyright in it.  I own the copyright on this post, you own the copyright on yours, so if Golf Digest thought our exchange was so insightful they reproduced it in their next issue, we could sue them and collect damages!

In the past you had to actually register your copyright for it to be valid, so stuff like a GI's letter to his sweetheart telling him he made it through D-Day OK wasn't copyrighted.  I would assume (but I could be wrong) that anything like a book would have been registered, though I'm less clear on the case with a magazine -- in some, the authors would be required by the magazine to sign over their rights, in others, the authors would retain their rights.  But if those authors didn't file for copyright then those articles would be public domain now.

Its just a huge and messy minefield.  Obviously the USGA's lawyers who have looked into this know 10,000x more about it than I do, but it just seems like such an intractable problem to me I'm curious how they intend to solve it, which is why I brought this up.

Things would be oh so simple if the Congress had just left copyright law alone and it was just like in the Constitution with a 14 year term, with one 14 year renewal possible if the author was still alive.  But like in many other areas, greed got in the way of good public policy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()