I am very glad to see the images available, and am sure that a lot of very good work was put into the scanning and transcription, much less the political fight that eventually allowed the rights to the expensive scans to be made public.
That said, it is a bit sad to see yet another manuscript viewing UI in yet another siloed archive. More specifically:
- There is no way to link to an individual page, so while the manuscript is "online" it is not addressable as part of the linked web. Scholars who write about the manuscript will be unable to link to a specific item or to share linked-data with one another.
- How long will these URLs be valid? "http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-04004/ seems like the sort of thing that might get changed at the next departmental reorganization or database change.
- When viewing the manuscript, the hidden "contents" tab is far more valuable than the open "introduction" tab, and by default each manuscript is opened to page 0, which usually requires about ten manual page turns before landing at even the title page.
Some things that would be very nice to see in this field:
- An accepted metadata format or REST protocol for manuscripts, so that we could use a viewer of choice
- An inventive scholar to write digital scholarship that comments on these manuscripts using the full power of hypertext to link pages together, trace themes or ideas through different parts of the text, compare proof or notation methods between different texts in the corpus.
The Cambridge University Library claims copyright on the images, however they do offer this license:
"Images made available for download are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC 3.0)"
So there's no reason why someone couldn't do exactly what you suggest. (Unfortunately, the images you can download seem to be much lower resolution than the ones they're hosting.)
this is very interesting but I have a question, while the originals can't be under copyright, do the scans have a different copyright as kind of a derived work?
I thought that derivative copyrights only applied to work that required intellectual effort, such as a translation (for a book) or reinterpretation (for a song). The physical act of scanning doesn't seem like it should count.
Scanning ancient documents can be anything but trivial, and frequently more involved than simply placing paper/ parchment/ vellum/ etc on a glass plate. They usually need to be handled very carefully with mesh gloves, not compressed or folded , and likely not exposed to overly bright light to avoid fading the ink. The USA founding documents, which are over 100 years newer by comparison, are encased in inert gas and hidden from bright lights for preservation.
Newton's written notes may have required even greater care, which one could possibly argue would constitute unique intellectual effort.
Copyright does not protect "unique intellectual effort"; or at least that is not what it's for primarily. It protects the particular presentation of a creative work.
IMO copyright should not be granted on 'mechanical' reproductions no matter how much sweat is produced on how many brows.
Would Cambridge Uni really not digitise it's manuscript collection if they could not directly commercialise it?
You don't copyright from storing someone's work. Scanning is a point-and-click affair, as I discovered while copying pages from some early Aldine editions last summer.
Probably not, unless significant non-mechanical enhancement was performed, in which case maybe, and maybe differs between UK law and law elsewhere (and if you aren't yourself in the UK, how your local law interacts with the law in the country of the work's origin is another source of uncertainty). Here's the guidelines page Wikimedia Commons uses: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD...
> There is no way to link to an individual page, so while the manuscript is "online" it is not addressable as part of the linked web. Scholars who write about the manuscript will be unable to link to a specific item or to share linked-data with one another.
You can add a /n to the end of the URL, where n is the page you want it to point to.
Newton has been an inspiration. There was a famous quote by him that always stuck by me: "If others would think as hard as I did, then they would get similar results."
As far as I can tell, ~100% of the (many) references to that quote can be traced to Richard Hamming's 1986 lecture, "You And Your Research" (http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html), which includes that quote and attributes it to Newton (but without a specific citation). I'd be curious where Hamming got it from, since I'm not able to find either that exact quote or anything similar quoted by anybody pre-1986 (even as an apocryphal/uncited quote), at least from some brief Google Books and Lexis-Nexis digging.
You highly doubt a revolutionary figure said a radical thing because it would have been considered impolite/revolutionary/radical?
Newton was in a world of his own; he, along with a few select others (Lock, Descartes and others), are in large part responsible for the Enlightenment. The very Enlightenment this statement characterizes so well. Even if he didn't say it (I cannot find the source, but I have read this quote a number of times in various papers), it is very much the kind of statement he would make.
No, it isn't, for the same reason Newton didn't wear his hair like Elvis. No one invents his own culture. This has nothing to do with how radical Newton's ideas were or how great a genius he was. It has to do with what cultural forms existed at the time. You have to get to figures like Byron before this kind of statement makes sense (and my bet is that this one comes from later even than that).
However, I'm no scholar of the 17th century. Prove me wrong. If Newton said something that sensational, it won't be hard to track down. I didn't search for it like I usually do before making these claims, so your job should be easy.
Hard work as a means to success is hardly a post-romantic invention. Newton was very much a student of Aristotle, the teachings of whom we can see very much aligned with the statement in question.
In that light, would you also doubt these verified Newtonian quotes that suggest similar thinking?
"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."
"Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things."
"If I am anything, which I highly doubt, I have made myself so by hard work."
The first quote is proverbial, and Newton certainly said it, but the phrase dates from the 12th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_gi...) and is not part of Enlightenment tradition. Quite the opposite, in fact: it comes from the medieval tradition of abasing yourself before the ancients. So no, it doesn't resemble the disputed quote at all.
The second is not familiar to me, but it is 17th century language and does sound like something Newton would say. But it's irrelevant here. He's talking about nature, not himself.
The third is much closer to the disputed quote. But I don't believe Newton said this either. You know who said things like that? Horatio Alger. So let's see a textual source in Newton's works before accepting it as evidence.
Here's a helpful trick. When you Google a quote and the first page consists entirely of junk like this:
I looked for the "sign that the quote is bogus" but missed it. Maybe results that have 5 million hits are bogus? Maybe results that have relevant links are bogus? I can enter all sorts of valid quotes from both current and historic figures into Google, and obtain very similar results. ("Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You", "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be", "A man who dares to waste one hour of time has not discovered the value of life.") I fail to see how that adds anything to the discussion. Neither do I see how the fact that Newton restated, rather than originated, a particular idea, helps your argument.
Also, please inform me as to how this statement relates to Lord Byron. Nothing I've read of Byron would favor him as the statement's originator over Newton. I can't help but think of this scene from Good Will Hunting when I read your replies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymsHLkB8u3s&t=1m56s
Hey, this isn't a competition. We're just talking about an interesting historical question.
Maybe one point deserves clarification.
When you Google an authentic quote by a very famous person, a precise textual citation is usually locatable through one of the top results (or something it links to). Therefore, when you Google a quote by a very famous person and nothing but quotespam sites come up, the quote is probably bogus.
I've never seen an authentic quote that fails this test. If anyone can find one -- that is, find a quote by a very famous person, the first page of Google results for which is all quotespam, but which nevertheless is an authentic quote as proven by a real textual reference -- I would like to see it.
> If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Isn't this quote Newton being typical Newton and using this well-known phrase to be particularly nasty to Hooke? (Hooke was a hunchback, so Newton is saying he did not get insight from Hooke.)
I have read a few biographies of Newton and in some Hooke is a colleague albeit competitor and in others is a much-disliked rival. I don't really know which to believe.
My understanding is that some people think that Newton meant it as a nasty swipe and others disagree. But if you've read a few biographies of Newton then you know a lot more about this then I do.
Edit: there's a hilarious story about Freud that revolves around the quote. Freud was angry that one of his acolytes - I think it was Wilhelm Stekel - had published a book in which he had presumed to modify one of the master's ideas. Stekel defended himself by saying: A dwarf standing on the head of a giant sees a little further than the giant. Freud replied: A louse on my head sees no further than I do.
Newton was a strange mix of the modern and the ancient. Remember that he devoted most of his working life to compiling a chronology of the old Testament and to summarising various alchemical works. See Westfall's biography Never at Rest.
That said, it is a bit sad to see yet another manuscript viewing UI in yet another siloed archive. More specifically:
- There is no way to link to an individual page, so while the manuscript is "online" it is not addressable as part of the linked web. Scholars who write about the manuscript will be unable to link to a specific item or to share linked-data with one another.
- How long will these URLs be valid? "http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-04004/ seems like the sort of thing that might get changed at the next departmental reorganization or database change.
- When viewing the manuscript, the hidden "contents" tab is far more valuable than the open "introduction" tab, and by default each manuscript is opened to page 0, which usually requires about ten manual page turns before landing at even the title page.
Some things that would be very nice to see in this field:
- An accepted metadata format or REST protocol for manuscripts, so that we could use a viewer of choice
- An inventive scholar to write digital scholarship that comments on these manuscripts using the full power of hypertext to link pages together, trace themes or ideas through different parts of the text, compare proof or notation methods between different texts in the corpus.