Now I'd say that the discovery (if true, if true) may well be similar to
improvements such as Mike Ware, among others (including F Scott Archer and
the myriad who, the text books repeat in what could be a phrase that comes
with the photo type-setting kit "died in poverty"), have "given to the
world." (Those George Eastman, et al, stole may be a different category.)
But what of it? The difference is that Mike, for instance, decided on the
gift himself and for his own reasons. Whether the fact that he was big
professor at big institution of superior education entered the equation
only he can say. (Mike? Are you still generous?)
But that does not give us the *right* to demand someone else's
intellectual property, no matter how we perish of curiosity and desire.
As I say, the enormity of this assumption unhinged me. Sorry.
PS. This morning the "selenium-toned" cyanotype is all but
indistinguishable from the original in the shadows, slightly yellower
in the midtones, and absent in the top two highlights.
Judy