Thanks David, the PCF's work is really interesting.  Recording consent
to future uses of the images at the point of acquisition or digitisation
is a lesson many museums learned the hard way.

Is there anyone who can put the argument from the other side - why it
might not be in the best interest of an institution to change their
commercial licensing model?  Or why their institution has chosen not to
do it?  If you don't want to name your institution on list maybe you
could send a comment off-list for re-posting.

Surely if everyone agreed it was a good thing we would have done it by
now, wouldn't we?

cheers, Mia

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
> Behalf Of David Salmon
> Sent: 17 April 2008 13:28
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: copyright licensing and museums
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> Very interesting post, I am working at the Public Catalogue 
> Foundation and, for those who aren't aware of us, we are a 
> charity that is cataloging every oil painting in public 
> collections across the UK. At present we are publishing full 
> colour reproductions in print, but aim to put all the images 
> online as a resource for the general public over the next few years. 
> 
> We very rarely have to pay to reproduce someone's work, not 
> including Bridgeman/DACS fees etc. Our argument (as I 
> understand it), is that by granting consent, copyright 
> holders are helping contribute to a very unique and 
> groundbreaking project, and by putting images online we are 
> improving access to the nations collection of oil paintings. 
> We also offer free life time membership to anyone who grants 
> consent, but find once people understand what we are doing 
> they are very happy for the works to be included and often 
> continue to be very supportive after consent has been given.
> 
> In terms of charging for use, the website project is at the 
> very early stages of planning, but pay-on-demand for 
> printing/downloading images has been suggested. However, we 
> are keen to keep any costs by users down to a minimum as the 
> aim of the project is to increase accessibility to 
> collections as the UK tax payer 'owns' the oil paintings but 
> at present does not always have physical access to them. In 
> line with Michael Geist's argument that "the reality is that 
> they represent a significant impediment to access and use of 
> Canadian culture and ultimately undermine claims for enhanced 
> taxpayer support".
> 
> At present, we make it clear to copyright holders that the 
> works will be reproduced online in the future and that this 
> is something that they agree to when giving us consent, thus 
> avoiding any misunderstandings when we go online. Overall we 
> try and make it as clear as possible what we are doing and 
> the benefits our project brings to the collections and the 
> general public.
> 
> Apologies for the lengthy response, but thought that our 
> project is quite relevant to Frankie's post!
> 
> David.

**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************