asking: “Who is this serving?” UK GLAMs are also integrating openly licensed content to enrich collections data, improve information services and enable staff to focus on other tasks. Few also reciprocate by contributing openly licenced content and CC0 data to websites and external platforms.
The current situation is one of risking the public domain
The data demonstrates a pressing need to curtail these practices for the benefit of GLAMs, their staff and users and the UK economy. Participants expressed genuine concerns around the future relevance of their collections: “If we don’t release this stuff, we’re going to get written out of history. Images that reappear are going to be the ones that are openly licensed or in the public domain.” When asked what might help, one responded: “Anything that moves the needle would be helpful. But we really need a jump at this point.”
Open access has had an overwhelmingly positive impact on GLAMs that have embraced it
Open access has: removed barriers across systems and within operations, including the “copyright delay” embedded in collections management and public engagement; positively impacted their ability to attract research funding, including funding for digitisation (notably, for some with more developed open access programmes, the amount of funding attracted by the programme far outweighed the revenue generated by commercial licensing on an annual basis); positively impacted internal and external researchers’ abilities to pitch new projects and publish on topics that require images; resulted in greater overall public interest in collections, positive attention and good will; and increased the brand value and public profile. However, there is widespread incapacity to engage due to shortfalls in financing, labour, staffing and technologies. Participants stressed the incredible amount of work that goes into preparing collections for digital systems even prior to the incredible amount of work required for publication and for open access. As one commented, “Open access is hard too. For something that seems simple, it’s really not.”
Participants would welcome a stance by TaNC and UKRI
Many pointed to open licensing requirements of Wellcome Collection and The National Lottery Heritage Fund as positive developments that have enabled or revived discussions around open access. The feeling was that public funding should render all outputs produced through the funding as available for public reuse. A position protecting the public domain was also seen as necessary. Many commented that the more funders who embrace such policies the better, as it is harder to advocate for embedded change if open access only occurs in the margins. This was something seen as requiring fundamental attention.
TaNC can be leaders on this point and take a position for the UK GLAM sector to follow
Across the sector, there has been a lack of coordinated leadership, a disregard of the UK Intellectual Property Office’s Copyright Notice, tensions within GLAMs and among GLAM staff on open access demonstrating a huge gap that needs to be filled. More detailed recommendations on this are provided in Section 6.
