- creators' rights of in-copyright collections where public access is concerned.
- Some condition open access upon copyrights arising, seeing copyright as necessary to balance public access with income generation around some collections while releasing others as "open access" (the meaning of which varied).
- Some balance the "freedom of commercialisation" against assets as information and the obligations of public bodies.
- Others feel copyright is not a prerequisite to income generation and noted its absence had more of a positive impact.
There appears to be a general conflation of copyright with commercialisation goals, or copyright as even being necessary to commercialise media, perhaps informed by assumptions that controlling access is necessary to controlling revenue streams. For these GLAMS, scarcity around collections is understood as necessary to attracting commercial interest from the private sector. Indeed, some open access obligations were framed as disabling GLAMS from commercialising data published under open licences, which by design are available for everyone to commercialise, including GLAMs.
Staff noted difficulties getting conversations started. Some attributed progress to restructures affecting decision making hierarchies, or to a key decision maker with a good understanding of intellectual property and open access who was supportive of policy change. Others referenced tensions felt between commercialisation and research departments. In one instance, research staff preferred a more permissive approach but met resistance from the commercial group. When reviewing priorities for business growth, image licensing was low on the list. Staff also referenced decisions made by, or those answerable to, a governing board as weighing heavy on commercialisation priorities. There is a sense that senior leadership among boards and councils are becoming more restrictive due to government messaging. It is worth noting three of the six public domain compliant UK GLAMs are trusts: the Birmingham Museums Trust, York Museums Trust, and Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove.
Participants also highlighted interpretations of income, revenue, profit and value in relation to open access and grant-in-aid obligations. There is a very strong sense that income needs to continue to be generated in the current economic environment, particularly given the obligations of government funding. However, many noted such targets are set to generate income, not profit. In some cases, this means income is generated at all costs, which are not reviewed or tracked by the GLAM. While this is changing, the consensus was that this reflects a narrow understanding where collections produce direct, limited and one-way value to the public.[1] Staff expressed a pressing need to change perceptions of value: the GLAM rather than a reciprocal and broader value
The value that we all get when we make collections available far outstrips the "value" that institutions get [from licensing]. It's a reversal in value, and one of making [collections] available to the world. It's value to the public. A simplified understanding of value flows only one way-to the institution-and that's not how it works. There is a reciprocal value that flows both ways, and that is direct value.
Another observed:
