The following (166) eBook numbers have had page images added in the PG
archives. Due to the LARGE number of page images being moved over, it may take
a while for the page images to appear in the bibrec pages.

20915-20917, 20919-29, 20931, 20932, 20936, 20940, 20943, 20944, 20946-48,
20951, 20954-58, 20965, 20967, 20977, 20978, 20981, 20982, 20986-90, 20997,
21000-02, 21012, 21019-21, 21024, 21025, 21031, 21032, 21034, 21045-47, 21051,
21052, 21054, 21055, 21081, 21083, 21091-93, 21111, 21112, 21115, 21123,
21126, 21130, 21138, 21193-95, 21197, 21198, 21200, 21208-10, 21219, 21220,
21250-52, 21258, 21261-64, 21266, 21268, 21270-74, 21282, 21284-86, 21288,
21290, 21300, 21321, 21325, 21327-30, 21339, 21341, 21342, 21344-46, 21348-50,
21400, 21411, 21412, 21414-16, 21418, 21419

21008-10, 21027, 21028, 21040, 21041, 21048, 21049, 21079, 21080, 21084,
21188-90, 21196, 21213, 21216, 21217, 21224, 21225, 21243, 21247, 21248,
21255, 21267, 21275, 21278-81, 21322, 21323, 21340, 21353, 21399, 21406-09

To find these:

Go to
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/search

Fill in the E-Text no. e.g. 21275

Choose Base directory

Voilà
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21275/21275-page-images/

See also:
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Scanning_FAQ#S.21._Will_PG_store_scanned_page_images_of_my_book.3F
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=site%3Agutenberg.org+%22page+images%22&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

I have argued that there is no need to exclude commercial use in the OPEN ACCESS context:

http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/3493112/

Here are arguments that there is no need to exclude derivative works:

http://www.stoa.org/?p=632

Creative Commons and research
May 8th, 2007 by Gabriel Bodard

A post on the Creative Commons blog draws together four articles on the value of Creative Commons licensing for newspapers, scientists, film students, and Wikipedia “SEOers” respectively. All are worth reading, but it is the article on scientists that is of most interest here. This article, posted at ScienceBlogs on 1st May by Rob Knop makes the case that:

Scientists do not need, and indeed should not have, exclusive (or any) control over who can copy their papers, and who can make derivative works of their papers.

The very progress of science is based on derivative works! It is absolutely essential that somebody else who attempts to reproduce your experiment be able to publish results that you don’t like if those are the results they have. Standard copyright, however, gives the copyright holders of a paper at least a plausible legal basis on which to challenge the publication of a paper that attempts to reproduce the results— clearly a derivative work!

I would extend this argument (and indeed have done so repeatedly and vocally) to assert that this applies to equally to all academic research, including the Humanties. This is a key part of the philosophy behind the Open Source Critical Editions network that I helped convene last year. All published research includes the requirement to publish the “source code” (by way of citations, arguments, primary and secondary references, retraceable argumentation), and the expectation that others will use this “source” to verify, reproduce, modify, or refute your work. Copyright, and especially digital copyright and crippleware, should not be allowed to get in the way of this process because without this freedom a publication can not be considered research.

This "fifteenth-century manuscript" now on e-bay
link
is a virtual manuscript - a fraud concocted from shots of other manuscripts. So far the cover has been identified as coming from a another book in Scandinavia. The picture of the binding is stolen from the web site of the Royal Library in Copenhagen, showing the back cover of ms. GKS 1612 ( Heures de Charles de la maison de France, dernier duc de Bourgogne) lots of details are unmistakable (including the shadows on the gray background!) It has not been modified, just cropped and diminished. See :
link

Thanks to Erik Drigsdahl (CHD Center for Haandskriftstudier i Danmark) for this precision.

http://blog.pecia.fr/post/2007/05/08/Arnaque-au-manuscrit-virtuel#comments

A federal judge has ordered the online auction of the 22,000 page journal of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, with the proceeds to go towards victim restitution, according to a Reuters news story. The papers, along with other items to be auctioned, were seized from Kaczynski’s cabin at the time of his arrest, and have been in the hands of law enforcement officials ever since.

Had the journal been returned to Kaczynski as he requested in 2003, it probably would have joined the Ted Kaczynski papers and several related items in the Labadie Collection at University of Michigan Special Collections.

A 2000 San Francisco Chronicle article took a fairly negative and sarcastic view of the academic study of Kaczynski’s writings, but did an acceptable job of explaining how the papers (in particular, the 22,000-page journal) relate to UM’s other holdings and includes a quote from curator Julie Herrada. However, the article also quotes Assistant U. S. Attorney R. Steven Lapham, who worked on the Kaczynski prosecution team, as saying, “This is all hogwash . . . The guy’s nothing but a serial murderer, and I don’t know why we’re giving him the time of day.”

Then-SAA President Randall Jimerson explained in 2004 exactly why archivists are ‘giving him (Kaczynski) the time of day’:

“For archivists the fundamental issue at stake in this case is the necessity of preserving an accurate record of the past to guide our future actions and decisions. The perspectives of terrorists and criminals are as important to understand as those of public officials and intellectual leaders as we respond to the challenges in our country and throughout the world today. Archivists make daily decisions about which documents and records of contemporary society will be preserved for future reference and use. This is essential to ensure accurate societal memory of the past. Armed with this knowledge, public citizens and leaders alike can address these issues squarely and confidently.”

This quote came from a press release about an amicus brief filed by the ACLU of Northern California on behalf of the ALA and SAA’s Freedom to Read Foundation. At the time, the government was attempting to block public access to the journals. According to the ACLU release:

The Freedom to Read Foundation, founded by the American Library Association, and the Society of American Archivists, appearing as friends of the court, contend “that the original documents should be preserved and made accessible to scholars, researchers, and the general public, and that the First Amendment precludes irrational and arbitrary government action that could needlessly result in the destruction or deterioration of the papers and denial of public access.”

They further argue that the public has a “First Amendment right of access to culturally and historically significant original documents” and that the “reprehensible nature of a person’s crimes does not justify a conclusion that scholars and the public should be denied a chance to study his original papers.”

Now, in 2006, the journal has been declared fit for public research, but rather than being returned to Kaczynski or donated to the archival repository of his choice, it is going up for public auction. We can only hope that, as in the recent case of the MLK papers, an institution steps forward to purchase the papers with the twin archival goals of preservation and public access.

http://www.foldering.com/?p=13

If I were "You": How Academics Can Stop Worrying and Learn to Love "the Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit"
By Daniel Paul O'Donnell (University of Lethbridge), in: The Heroic Age May 2007
http://www.heroicage.org/issues/10/em.html

Excerpts:

§19. If I am correct in thinking that attempts to create alternatives to the Wikipedia by combining aspects of traditional academic selectivity and review with a wiki-based open collaboration model are doomed to failure, then the question becomes what "we" (the professional University teachers and researchers who are so suspicious of the original Wikipedia) are to do with what "you" (the amateurs who contribute most of the Wikipedia's content) produce.

§20. It is clear that we can't ignore it: no matter what we say in our syllabi, students will continue to use the Wikipedia in their essays and projects—citing it if we allow them to do so and plagiarising from it if we do not. Just as importantly, the Wikipedia is rapidly becoming the public's main portal to the subjects we teach and research: popular journalists now regularly cite the Wikipedia in their work and the encyclopaedia commonly shows up on the first page of Google searches. While it may not be in any specific scholar's individual professional interest to take time away from his or her refereed research in order to contribute to a project that provides so little prestige, it is clearly in our collective interest as a profession to make sure that our disciplines are well represented in the first source to which our students and the broader public turn when they want to find out something about the topics we research and teach.

§21. But perhaps this shows us the way forward. Perhaps what we need is to see the Wikipedia and similar participatory sites less as a threat to our way of doing things than a way of making what we do more visible to the general public. The fictional romance between LonelyGirl15 and DanielBeast on YouTube did not threaten the makers of commercial television. But it did give prominence to a medium that makers of commercial television now use regularly to attract audiences to their professional content in the traditional media. In our case, the Wikipedia is less an alternative to traditional scholarship (except perhaps as this is represented in print encyclopaedias) than it is a complement—something that can be used to explain, show off, and broaden the appeal of the work we do in our professional lives.

§22. In fact, the important thing about the Wikpedia is that it has been built almost entirely through the efforts of amateurs—that is to say by people who are not paid to conduct research in our disciplines but do so anyway because it is their hobby. While it can certainly be disheartening to see the occasional elementary mistake or outlandish theory in a Wikipedia entry, we should not ignore the fact that the entry itself exists because people were interested enough in what we do to try and imitate it in their spare time. Given the traditional lack of respect shown scholarly research by governments and funding agencies for much of the last century, we should be rejoicing in this demonstration of interest—in much the same way scientists judging a science fair are able to see past the many relatively trivial experiments on display and recognise the event's importance as a representation of popular interest in what they do.

§23. This recognition of the extent to which the Wikipedia has engaged the imagination of the general public and turned it to the amateur practice of scholarship suggests what I think may prove to be the best way of incorporating it into the lives of professional academics: since the Wikipedia appears unable to serve as a route to professional advancement for intrinsic reasons, perhaps we should begin to see contributions to it by professional scholars as a different type of activity altogether—as a form of community service to be performed by academics in much the same way lawyers are often expected to give back to the public through their pro bono work. A glance at almost any discussion page on the Wikipedia will show that the Wikipedians themselves are aware of the dangers posed to the enterprise by the inclusion of fringe theories, poor research, and contributions by people with insufficient disciplinary expertise. As certified experts who work daily with the secondary and primary research required to construct good Wikipedia entries, we are in a position to contribute to the construction of individual articles in a uniquely positive way by taking the time to help clean up and provide balance to entries in our professional areas of interest. In doing so, we can both materially improve the quality of the Wikipedia and demonstrate the importance of professional scholars to a public whose hobby touches very closely on the work we are paid to do—and whose taxes, by and large, support us.

§24. And who knows, maybe "we" could even join "you" in accepting Time Magazine's nomination for person of the year.


I agree.

http://www.scottishhandwriting.com/

Welcome to Scottish Handwriting.com, the website offering online tuition in palaeography for historians, genealogists and other researchers who have problems reading manuscript historical records written in Scotland in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries.



Via http://nederlandserfgoed.blogspot.com/

You might be interested to know that it has been announced that when the Vatican Library closes for the summer on 14 July, it will remain CLOSED FOR THREE YEARS, to reopen in September 2010.

From 14 July there will be no access to books or manuscripts; and
no exceptions. The photographic department will continue to function after a delay involving its relocation, since it is in the part of the building which will get major restructuring.

The necessary forms for photographic requests can be found at:

http://www.vaticanlibrary.vatlib.it/BAVT/info/en/Services/photo_reproductions.htm

See also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6617735.stm

http://www.april16archive.org/

The April 16 Archive uses electronic media to collect, preserve, and present the stories and digital record of the Virginia Tech tragedy of April 16, 2007.

Nancy Beaumont
to the "Archives" mailing list:

**Posted on behalf of the Council of State Archivists, the Society of American Archivists, and the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators**

NHPRC Funding Zeroed Out for FY 2008;
Take Action Now to Save NHPRC!

The National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) – the grant making arm of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) – is targeted in the President’s proposed FY 2008 budget for zero funding for grants and zero funding for staff to administer the agency and its programs. For FY 2008, our organizations and the National Coalition for History support full funding for national grants at $10 million plus $2 million for staffing and administration.

The newly created House and Senate Financial Services and General Government appropriations subcommittees have jurisdiction over the NARA appropriation, including NHPRC. These subcommittees currently are drafting appropriations bills for the programs under their jurisdiction. This spring is a critical time to make your voice heard on this appropriation.

ACTION NEEDED! If you support restored funding for the NHPRC grants program, please contact your Congressional representatives now, especially if they are members of the House and Senate subcommittees on Financial Services and General Government:
http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_fsdc.shtml
http://appropriations.senate.gov/financialservices.cfm

To contact your Members of Congress, go to the National Coalition for History website at http://historycoalition.org and click on “Humanities Advocacy Network.” The website allows you to send a pre-written electronic letter or to edit the letter to include your own story and express your own views. You can also fax a letter to your Member of Congress or contact him/her through the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121. To find your representative’s website, go to http://www.house.gov; to find your senator’s website, go to http://www.senate.gov. For suggestions on writing letters, including details about the impact that NHPRC grants have had in specific states, visit the SaveArchives wiki at http://savearchives.pbwiki.com.

FUNDING HISTORY: The NHPRC grants program is authorized at $10 million through FY 2009. This small but effective program last received its fully authorized $10 million in FY 2004. In FY 2007, Congress appropriated $5.5 million for NHPRC grants and $2 million for administrative costs, despite the Administration’s continued efforts to eliminate the program. Unfortunately, cuts of this magnitude – and the uncertainty created by the annual threat of extinction – endanger the agency’s programmatic integrity.

We believe that NHPRC needs at least $10 million in FY 2008 if the agency is to meet its congressional mandate to provide leadership in preserving our nation’s documentary heritage and to make that heritage accessible through publication. In addition, $2 million is required to maintain the expert staffing to administer this program. Loss of funding for NHPRC’s grants projects will have a domino effect, causing funding from other sources to be withdrawn or reduced. NHPRC’s grants are the linchpins for the funding structure of most projects; without them, the structure will collapse.

BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION: NHPRC, the grant making affiliate of the National Archives and Records Administration, was created within the National Archives in 1934, given its own staff in 1951, authorized to make grants in 1964, and reorganized in 1975 as the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. Its 15 members represent the three branches of the federal government and six professional associations of archivists, historians, documentary editors, and records officers.

During the past 40+ years, the Commission has awarded $163 million to more than 4,200 state and local government archives, colleges and universities, and other institutions to preserve and provide access to important records that document American history. As characterized by former Archivist of the United States John Carlin, NHPRC is “history’s venture capitalist.” Through federal outright and matching grants, it successfully leverages private sector contributions to projects such as the publishing of papers associated with nationally significant individuals and institutions.

NHPRC currently is helping to fund dozens of papers projects, including those of founders Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Madison; projects documenting the ratification of the Constitution and the First Federal Congress; the correspondence between Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony; the Papers of Eleanor Roosevelt; the Frederick Douglass Papers; and the Papers of General George C. Marshall. It has funded hundreds of projects designed to preserve historical records of enduring value, as well as cooperative state, regional, and national projects that address common archival issues, such as the complex problem of preserving electronic historical records.

NHPRC works to accomplish its mandate by setting strategic priorities; using modest federal grants to stimulate state, local, institutional, and private contributions; and providing expert staff assistance to grantees to address these priorities. It is the only grant-making organization – public or private – whose mission is to provide national leadership in the effort to promote the preservation and accessibility of historical records and to publish the papers of significant figures and themes in American history.
If Congress allows the NHPRC to be zeroed out of the federal budget, this important program, which has played an essential federal leadership role and has an outstanding success record of using a small amount of federal funds to leverage other contributions, would come to an end. This would be devastating to such projects as development of new archival programs; promotion of the preservation and use of historical records; regional and national coordination in addressing major archival issues; editing and publication of the papers of nationally significant individuals and institutions; and a wide range of other activities relating to America's documentary heritage.

For more information about the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, visit the agency’s website at: http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/

We hope that we can count on your help in our cooperative effort to ensure funding for NHPRC. If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact any of us at the email addresses or phone numbers below.

Elizabeth Adkins, President, Society of American Archivists (312-922-0140; president@archivists.org)

Karl Niederer, President, Council of State Archivists (609-984-3299; pres@statearchivists.org)

Mary Beth Herkert, President, National Association of Government Archives & Records Administrators
(503-378-5196; mary.e.herkert@state.or.us)