1. Situating the study
“Rights need to be fronted. The idea of having joined up collections is great. But, in practice, the rights must be sorted out at the start.”
1.1. Introducing the study
This report contributes a UK perspective of open GLAM while analysing it against the global open GLAM movement and recent legal developments that will dramatically alter the digital landscape of open access to cultural heritage collections in the public domain. It is directed at a range of audiences central to this landscape, including TaNC and the AHRC, UK government, lawmakers and policymakers, GLAM directors, staff and supporters, the general public and users, and even audiences outside the UK.
The research proceeded against a backdrop of similar studies spanning two decades of data on the benefits and drawbacks of copyright claims, commercial licensing and open access strategies adopted by cultural institutions and organisations:
- A 2002 report by Simon Tanner and Marilyn Deegan explored reproduction charging models for digital cultural heritage in the UK and Europe among 51 institutions, including in-depth interviews and observations of a representative sample of 15. Tanner and Deegan found “the most powerful deciding factor for price was the perceived market value of the item (as defined by what similar organizations are charging) rather than the actual cost of creation and provision.” None of the institutions fully recovered the costs of the services through licensing alone.[1]
- Simon Tanner’s follow-on 2004 report explored reproduction charging models for digital cultural heritage in the US among 100 museums, including in-depth interviews and observations of a representative sample of 20. Tanner found most licensing departments operated at a loss. A few larger museums produced profits based on income generated around a relatively tiny group of popular works.[2]
- Studies in 2006 and 2009 by Nancy Allen, Hillary Ballon and Mariet Westermann focused on the field of art history and art history publishing. The research found the dependence on high quality images and the copyright costs associated with them negatively impact the field of art history and are serious impediments to the productive development of digital publications for art history.[3]
- A 2009 report by Prodromos Tsiavos mapped the flows of content, value and rights across the UK public sector. Tsiavos found rights clearance, the constant education of audiences and staff training on intellectual property are crucial to the success of digitisation initiatives and open access objectives, which correlate to the higher maintenance costs involved in
- ↑ https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/exploring-charging-models-for-digital-cultural-heritage-in-europe(5f0e70c0-8753-4d71-bbf9-881dfa5352a9)/export.html
- ↑ https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/reproduction-charging-models--rights-policy-for-digital-images-in-american-art-museums(95d04077-f8ec-4094-b8c1-d585c6b16d9b).html
- ↑ http://cnx.org/content/col10728/1.1/; http://cnx.org/content/col10376/1.1/
