In article <[log in to unmask]>, James
Cummings <[log in to unmask]> writes
>However, I don't think that the libraries would agree that they are not losing
>any money.
I was quoted 8,000 GBP for the British Library to photograph 3
manuscripts, and it would take them 10 days to do. Since I could
photograph them in a day and a half for nothing, as an amateur, I have
some difficulty in seeing that they are really doing this 'at cost.' It
all comes down to staff time. Are they really paying their staff 800
pounds a day!?! I think not...
However, I would suggest that libraries need to rethink this. Gouging
scholars for microfilms must be a declining trade. What they need to do
is to think of a way to make money from reader digital photography.
It's fairly clear: sell licenses to photograph. Keep them cheap so
people keep coming (e.g. 5 pounds a day) and make the purchase of a
license require a signature handing over commercial rights in the
photos. Then they can also sell half-hour 'how to get the best out of
your digital camera with our books' courses (compulsory for each new
photographer, so they can weed out the idiots). They can as many or as
few licenses as they like, they make money, the images are not of
commercial standard (no lighting permitted will ensure that) so should
not rival their sales of commercial digital images. The only market
that suffers is the one for gouging scholars for microfilms. On the
other hand, they can flog DVD-sets of their reader-contributed images to
other libraries, as a subscription service.
All it takes is a bit of imagination... So long as they keep the prices
down, no-one will moan.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
The Tertullian Project (tertullian.org)
Additional Fathers online in English (tertullian.org/fathers)
QuickLatin (quicklatin.com)
Promoting interest in Tertullian studies <><
|