Sorry Mike!
Best
Naomi
-----Original Message-----
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
electronic museum
Sent: 21 April 2008 11:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: copyright licensing and museums /CC
There seems to be a "getting people's names wrong" virus spreading through
the MCG list....
Luckily my name has a CC license attached to it so I'll let you mash it up
without sending my lawyer over ;-)
This discussion will obviously continue, but for now I gotta go do some
work.
Mike/Mikey/Mickey/Mick/M/etc
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Naomi Korn <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi Mick
>
> I am afraid that I just don't agree with your points below. Whilst *WE*
> may
> want *OUR* stuff to be used by others freely, the bottom line is that
> often
> we don't just don't own the rights to be able to allow this to happen.
> Indeed, whether we are subject to third party licensing agreements,
> contracts with funding bodies or just opening ourselves up to legal
> uncertainty, ultimately, it boils down to taking proportionate and
> informed
> risks -risks concerning access that we may permit to others stuff. The
> law
> extends its tentacles to the web as much (and perhaps more so) than
> analogue
> and we can certainly swim against the tide, but not being able to afford
> to
> take the mega risks that the mega bucks of google can bring to hand - I am
> afraid that we will just be gobbled up by the sharks and other nasties
> that
> are out there unless we are sensible about the approaches that we take
> towards rights, responsibilities and risks. Sensible approaches don't mean
> slamming a CC licence on to content in the name of "opening up" content -
> but instead, it's about understanding what CC licences do (and can't do)
> their implications, and also that you just can't use them if you don't own
> the rights or have permission.
>
> I certainly don't believe that we should hold back from putting our stuff
> on
> the web, the opposite - but we need to ensure that we challenge the access
> issues constructively and not putting ourselves and our organisations at
> risk. Some of the approaches can include joint lobbying - (i.e. how many
> museums wrote in to the Gowers Copyright Consultation that recently
> closed?); risk assessments built into project planning; working with and
> informing funding bodies to ensure that risks associated with orphan works
> are dealt with appropriately; training staff; clarity to users regarding
> what they can and can't do with content and YES - exploring CC licences as
> an option - but if they don't fit, not to use them, but exploring other
> licences that do work.
>
> Naomi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> electronic museum
> Sent: 21 April 2008 10:38
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: copyright licensing and museums /CC
>
> Nick - you say "...irrevocable open content licenses like Creative Commons
> fundamentally undermines our ability as a sector to take control of what
> we
> want people to do, and what we don't"
>
> Here's the fundamental point, surely: **THE WEB** fundamentally undermines
> our ability to "take control" of ANYTHING!
>
> Once we finally accept the truth that when stuff is out there, it WILL be
> copied, remixed and "abused", we can take one of several routes:
>
> 1. Decide it's not for us and stop putting our content on the web
> 2. Continue down the (many would argue) futile route of attempting to lock
> material down with DRM, complex licenses, legal teams..
> 3. Open it up and swim with the tide rather than against it
>
> Yes, I'm the "militant" you talk about :-) (I like to think militant
> hippy,
> which softens it a bit...) - but as per my previous emails, there is a
> fair
> amount of evidence that the latter approach isn't nearly as stupid as it
> appears, and actually ticks our "more for more" remits as well as
> financial
> ones. But we're still solid lacking evidence either way (hence my
> suggestion
> to do some measuring...).
>
> I'm also not sure I accept your "museums tried CC once and it didn't work"
> line - this requires 1) museums to have tried it rather than just talked
> about it and 2) to have THEN decided that because of solid financial or
> social evidence that this approach didn't work. I may have missed it, but
> I'm not sure this has happened? If there is a report on museums that have
> tried CC, with research into why it works or doesn't, backed up by this
> kind
> of evidence, I'd love to be made aware of it!
>
> I think JT's last sentence is hugely appropriate to much of the stuff we
> do
> or try to do:
>
> "what's important here, is that museums figure out how to ENABLE READY
> USE in communities they want to serve, and reserve their limited resources
> for negotiation in contexts where it really matters."
>
> If any of the experience we've had building stuff for an online audience
> has
> taught us *anything*, it's that simple, easy to understand, non-perfect
> means FAR outweigh heavy, arcane, tangled, slow.
>
> After all, anyone with the ctrl, C and V buttons automatically have the
> means to be a content pirate...
>
> ta
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 5:16 PM, j trant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Nick,
> >
> > i'm not sure who "jessica" is ... i'm jennifer ... sometimes jen and
> often
> > jt, since typing jennifer is just too difficult ;)
> >
> > anyways, here's the rationale -- and history -- behind my interest in
> cc
> > and *specifically in cc+ * which really should not be lumped in with all
> the
> > other cc licenses.
> >
> > i've been closely involved in a number of initiatives that explored
> > licensing of museum content, starting with the Museum Educational Site
> > Licensing Project (MESL) in 1994 (pre-web), through the creation and
> > ultimate demise of AMICO (a museum-directed no-for-profit that licensed
> art
> > museum content for broad educational use, on a cost-recovery basis).
> i've
> > written a bit about the complex nature of museum ip, and the benefits of
> > licensing [see http://www.archimuse.com/consulting/trant_pub.html for a
> > list of papers; go back to 1996 for the most relevant]. i think we agree
> on
> > a lot of things.
> >
> > where we diverge is in the recognition of the role of transaction costs
> > the ip economy. they are often overlooked (particularly in the cultural
> > heritage sector where labour is 'free'). the costs of negotiating
> one-off
> > licenses for widely accepted uses simply aren't sustainable. indeed, for
> > many museums, the costs of saying 'yes' to educational users -- whose
> uses
> > they want to encourage -- are significant (even if 'all' you are
> counting
> is
> > an hour of staff time and some postage, these add up). when we think
> about
> > encouraging broad use, across a range of sectors -- think higher
> education,
> > primary and secondary education, public libraries, independent
> scholars,
> > other museums, just as a start -- this way of doing business simply is
> not
> > sustainable. it may even impede museums' goals.
> >
> > recognising this, the museums in AMICO developed a set of standard
> > licenses that could be used in each of these contexts (still on-line at
> > http://www.amico.org/docs.html ). for defined user communities, and
> > defined uses, standard terms apply. this is 'off the rack'; there's no
> need
> > for custom tailoring, and indeed, it wasn't accommodated. the system
> worked
> > at a reasonable cost because terms simply were not re-negotiated. legal
> > review was done up-front during the development of the agreements, and
> not
> > repeated with every license. hundreds of thousands of museum works have
> been
> > licensed for millions of users under these terms (and indeed still are
> in
> > places like the state of Ohio in business relationships that succeed the
> > demise of that consortium).
> >
> > the amico agreements were written at about the same time as the first cc
> > agreements, and we had tentative conversations about finding ways to
> bring
> > the two together. but at that time, the cc group wasn't interested in
> > complicating their licensing universe, and didn't see the need for
> different
> > kinds of agreements for different sectors. that's changed: c.f. the bbc
> > creative archive license [
> > http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk/licence/nc_sa_by_ne/uk/prov/] the open
> > data commons http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-community-norms/ and
> cc+
> > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus
> >
> > cc+ offers a framework for tailoring cc-based agreements to specific
> > sectoral needs. for example, a cc attribution, noncommercial, no
> derivative
> > works license could be 'plused' to include limited publications rights
> in
> > scholarly journals [the V&A and the Met have found ways to define
> 'scholarly
> > journal' that they are comfortable with. i think the sector could manage
> an
> > agreement on this]. in effect, this is saying 'yes' at low cost to uses
> that
> > museums regularly approve and often subsidize. [there are other
> questions
> > about fees for services like new photography, but that's not the focus
> of
> > this discussion. indeed this isn't a discussion about fees at all.]
> >
> > cc-based agreements offer a real bonus to the museum community, because
> > they are widely recognised and understood. this is critical. museums are
> > notoriously difficult to do business with (just read the lists of the
> art
> > historians and other users if you want to hear about lengthy response
> times,
> > inconsistent replies, and contradictory terms). a cc+ based scholar's
> > publication agreement could readily satisfy this community's needs
> across
> > the board, in a way that served all involved. and if there are other
> places,
> > like teachers packs at the powerhouse, where existing cc agreements
> work,
> > that's great. again, a recognised set of terms are offered, and the
> museum
> > doesn't have to negotiate and re-negotiate.
> >
> > what's important here, is that museums figure out how to enable ready
> use
> > in communities they want to serve, and reserve their limited resources
> for
> > negotiation in contexts where it really matters.
> >
> > /jt
> >
> > p.s. and no licensing framework, whatever it is, will remove the need
> for
> > good ip management within an institution.
> >
> > p.p.s we freely distribute Museums and the Web papers on-line under CC
> > [attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives] + people still buy the
> > books...
> >
> > At 8:57 AM +0100 4/19/08, Nick Poole wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jessica,
> > >
> > > At the risk of kicking off a whole new thread, we've been looking
> > > seriously at CC for the past 3 years and found that as a model it is
> > > absolutely fraught with issues and risks for culture-sector
> organisations. A
> > > recent (I think JISC-funded?) report did an excellent job of looking
> into
> > > the takeup of CC among cultural institutions and found that it was
> > > absolutely minimal.
> > >
> > > The reasons are many and various, but include the fact that the
> licenses
> > > (in their raw form) are worldwide, irrevocable and carry (or carried -
> they
> > > may have been updated in the interim) no provision for defamatory use.
> The
> > > other difficulty was that they are *only* applicable where you are
> clearly
> > > and uniquely the rightsholder, and therefore have the right to
> attribute
> the
> > > content under a CC license - for most cultural organisations this is
> not
> the
> > > case. I also know that at the time we were looking into CC, there was
> almost
> > > no relevant international case law, and none at all in the UK.
> > >
> > > Like everyone else, the museums sector in the UK got caught up in CC
> > > evangelism a couple of years ago, and like everyone else, the
> enthusiasm
> has
> > > dissipated in the face of real issues of rights management. It seemed
> to
> > > offer so much, and there is considerable merit in models such as the
> 3-tier
> > > presentation (RDF/legal/human), but I would counsel almost any
> cultural
> > > institution against the unilateral adoption of CC unless you have a
> really
> > > clear idea of the rights status of your works. There is also a lot of
> > > potential in models such as the BBC Creative Archive License.
> > >
> > > At the end of the day, however, CC is *just* a set of licenses. It
> > > doesn't change the law, and it is only applicable where it is
> applicable. I
> > > would far rather that cultural institutions became confident
> negotiators
> of
> > > rights agreements and used licensing as a flexible tool for managing
> > > permissions, rather than adopting a framework from somewhere else
> without
> > > understanding the full implications of what they're doing.
> > >
> > > Now, any negative comment on CC tends to invoke a flame war (not from
> > > you, Jessica, but there are enough 'party faithful' left in CC-world
> to
> make
> > > it an issue), and I would rather avoid this. If our assessment (based,
> I
> > > have to say, on quite a lot of in-depth work) is incorrect in respect
> of
> the
> > > current generation of CC licenses, I would welcome a gentle and
> reasoned
> > > clarification! I'd also love to hear from museums who have
> successfully
> > > implemented CC over their collections (and particularly images being
> > > syndicated for use elsewhere).
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> > > Nick Poole
> > > Chief Executive
> > > Collections Trust
> > >
> > > www.collectionstrust.org.uk
> > > www.collectionslink.org.uk
> > > www.cuturalpropertyadvice.gov.uk
> > >
> > >
> > > Tel: 01223 316028
> > > Fax: 01223 364658
> > >
> > >
> > > Until the end of April 2008, the Collections Trust's legal trading
> name
> > > is: MDA (Europe) Ltd
> > > Company Registration No: 1300565
> > > Reg. Office: 22 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1JP.
> > >
> > > The Collections Trust believes that everybody, everywhere should have
> > > the right to access and benefit from cultural collections. Our aim is
> to
> > > develop programmes and standards which help connect people and
> culture.
> > >
> > > The Collections Trust was launched from its predecessor body, the MDA,
> > > in March 2008.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: j trant [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 18 April 2008 16:01
> > > To: Museums Computer Group
> > > Cc: Nick Poole
> > > Subject: Re: copyright licensing and museums
> > >
> > > Nick,
> > >
> > > I'd urge you to look seriously at CC+ it's not at all an
> > > "irrevocable open content licenses like Creative Commons [that]
> > > fundamentally undermines our ability" but a widely recognised tool to
> > > do just what you argue: respect the different relationship between
> > > museums and their many, varied constituencies.
> > >
> > > /jt
> > >
> > > At 3:16 PM +0100 4/18/08, Nick Poole wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > Echoing Naomi's email, this is one of the fundamental principles
> > > > which led us to make the change from MDA to the Collections Trust.
> > > >
> > > > The place for this discussion as at the intersection between
> > > > technologists, legal experts, managers, accountants and marketers.
> > > > In the absence of such a focus, this discussion tends to be (has
> > > > already been) repeated in each community separately, and each time
> > > > with a slightly different set of assumptions about the needs,
> > > > priorities and potential contribution of those 'other' communities.
> > > >
> > > > As Naomi says, this conversation has been had (many times) in
> > > > copyright world. It has been had in Europe. It is being had
> > > > nationally as part of discussions about standards and development.
> > > > It is being had in Government in the context of rationalising
> > > > cultural organisations.
> > > >
> > > > Copyright is the key to navigating this situation intelligently
> > > > instead of simply blundering through it. Setting aside copyright
> > > > law, a genuinely intelligent approach to licensing enables us to
> > > > satisfy most of our wishes, and the needs of our users, at the same
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > Licensing can direct the same piece of content to be freely
> > > > available, mashable etc in some circumstances, and locked-down and
> > > > paid for in others. It's not an either/or and the 'set it free'
> > > > militancy and wanton application of irrevocable open content
> > > > licenses like Creative Commons fundamentally undermines our ability
> > > > as a sector to take control of what we want people to do, and what
> > > > we don't.
> > > >
> > > > The tension is clear - on the one hand, Government and the Treasury
> > > > are talking about museums becoming more innovative and risky. The
> > > > implication is that there will be less public investment available,
> > > > so museums are going to have to become more commercially-oriented
> > > > (speaking recently with a Government officer, whose comment was
> > > > 'museums need to start thinking like businesses, before they don't
> > > > have a choice').
> > > >
> > > > Technology world has engendered a number of new business models,
> > > > which we have pored over in previous discussions on this list. While
> > > > I do believe that there is scope for some of these models to provide
> > > > sustainable income (both economic and in the form of public value)
> > > > for museums, the upfront message is 'freedom', 'open', 'set the
> > > > content free' - which apparently undermines the more business-minded
> > > > messages coming through from Government.
> > > >
> > > > The fact is that we are talking about a whole different industry
> > > > model. Our economy used to be based on venues and objects. It is now
> > > > based on publishing. Technology certainly provides one of the
> > > > mechanisms by which our published content is brought to market, but
> > > > actually making the whole process sustainable depends on a
> > > > rock-solid foundation of marketing, business modelling, financial
> > > > management and licensing.
> > > >
> > > > We need to have the conversation holistically, or we run the risk of
> > > > fundamentally undermining our own position.
> > > >
> > > > Nick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nick Poole
> > > > Chief Executive
> > > > Collections Trust
> > > >
> > > > www.collectionstrust.org.uk
> > > > www.collectionslink.org.uk
> > > > www.cuturalpropertyadvice.gov.uk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tel: 01223 316028
> > > > Fax: 01223 364658
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Until the end of April 2008, the Collections Trust's legal trading
> > > > name is: MDA (Europe) Ltd
> > > > Company Registration No: 1300565
> > > > Reg. Office: 22 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1JP.
> > > >
> > > > The Collections Trust believes that everybody, everywhere should
> > > > have the right to access and benefit from cultural collections. Our
> > > > aim is to develop programmes and standards which help connect people
> > > > and culture.
> > > >
> > > > The Collections Trust was launched from its predecessor body, the
> > > > MDA, in March 2008.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> > > >
> > > >Of Naomi Korn
> > >
> > > > Sent: 18 April 2008 08:29
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Re: copyright licensing and museums
> > > >
> > > > Dear Frankie (et al)
> > > >
> > > > I have been following the discussion with some interest and being
> into
> > > >
> > > >copyright and all that, felt compelled to respond hook line and
> sinker
> > > when
> > >
> > > > you first raised the topic, but decided to sit back a bit first
> > > > (unusually
> > > > for me) and wait a little for the discussion to unfold.
> > > >
> > > > I think that your distinctions below are really helpful and map out
> > > > well the
> > > > different types of works that we have in our collections and the
> > > > "freedoms"
> > > > that are associated with each. Underpinning this, is that if a
> > > > collection
> > > > doesn't own the rights or have the permission from third party
> rights
> > > > holders, then they will also lack the freedom to control how the
> work
> > > > is
> > > > accessed and used. An excellent case for trying to get these
> necessary
> > > > permissions sorted when a work is acquired or created. I have an
> > > > anecdote
> > > > about a very nasty little person sitting out there in cyberspace who
> > > > is
> > > > lurking and waiting for cultural heritage organisations to use his
> > > > stuff
> > > > without his permission, and when they do, going in for the sting.
> Its
> > > > not
> > > > pleasant, rights holders can do it, and rather skews our risk
> > > > evaluation
> > > > pragmatism when dealing with certain types of works.
> > > >
> > > > Picking up on your "grey" - works of "no known copyright
> > > > restrictions",
> > > > would, in my mind, encapsulates the works which we don't know who
> owns
> > > > the
> > > > rights or the rights holders cannot be traced. Some of the more
> geeky
> > > > "copyright" lists that I belong to spend many, many hours discussing
> > > > the
> > > > issues surrounding these so called "orphan" works, simply because
> > > > there is
> > > > the potential to have just so many of them in any one collection and
> > > > there
> > > > is currently no legal certainty for collections who wish to use
> them.
> > > > This
> > > > is a good example of where the necessary collision of worlds needs
> to
> > > > happen
> > > > - between my geeky copyright friends and the experts on this list.
> > > > They are
> > > > all talking at the moment about the preventative measures needing to
> > > > be
> > > > implementing at an international, organisational and collections
> level
> > > > to
> > > > stop these works being created in the first place. But referring to
> > > > the need
> > > > to capture "information" and use "databases". This seems to me to be
> > > > very
> > > > much talking as we would 10-20 years ago. We need these discussions
> > > > held by
> > > > m'learned friends to be thinking and actively talking about
> integrated
> > > > systems, dynamic licences, embedded metadata, standards, collections
> > > > management systems, digital rights management etc etc if we want to
> > > > really
> > > > try and reduce the number of orphan works. Anyone up for a joint
> > > > session?
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes
> > > >
> > > > Naomi
> > > >
> > > > IP Consultant
> > > > www.naomikorn.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of
> > > > frankie roberto
> > > > Sent: 17 April 2008 18:09
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Re: copyright licensing and museums
> > > >
> > > > A few quick distinctions to make.
> > > >
> > > > There are at least 3 types of images museums have:
> > > >
> > > > 1) scans of artworks/photographs, where the original's copyright has
> > > > expired (ie is Public Domain)
> > > > 2) images where the museum owns the copyright (either through taking
> > > > the photo, or through assignment of all rights)
> > > > 3) images, or scans of images, where a third-party
> > > > (artist/photographer) owns the copyright.
> > > >
> > > > (there's also the grey area of 'no known copyright restrictions',
> but
> > > > lets ignore that for now.
> > > >
> > > > There are also a few different freedoms that a museum can grant:
> > > >
> > > > 1) freedom to view online, on our websites, plus by extension to
> > > > download for personal use.
> > > > 2) freedom to republish or redistribute (eg put on your
> blog/website,
> > > > or print in a book).
> > > > 3) freedom to make derivative works (to parody, to draw moustaches,
> or
> > > > to make photoshop 2 images together)
> > > > 4) freedom to make money from doing 2) or 3).
> > > >
> > > > From my perspective (and of Michael Gueist's), you should certainly
> be
> > > > able to have all 4 freedoms with public domain works (type 1). In
> > > > fact, it's impossible not to, other than by misleading people or by
> > > > making the images physically inaccessible. These are the kinds of
> > > >
> > > >images that Flickr Commons is all about.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > With type 2 works, where we own the copyright, there's no legal
> > > > obligation to grant any of the freedoms, but there's a moral
> argument
> > > > that we should be, for the public good, and also a possible
> > > >
> > > >practical/business one - granting the freedoms may generate more
> > >
> > > > interest, and revenue (in print sales, exhibition tickets, etc) down
> > > > the line.
> > > >
> > > > For type 3 works, things are a little more complicated, but we can
> > > > still try and make the case to the rights holders that they'd
> benefit
> > > > from making their works freer, in at least some of the above ways.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Frankie
> > > > (a slightly younger hippy and open source geek)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM, electronic museum
> > > > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is a really interesting thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Understanding what value can be had from exposure is obviously
> > > > > key.
> > > > >
> > > > There's
> > > >
> > > > > lots of evidence out there that getting more eyeballs to your
> > > > > stuff (and accepting that some "stealing" will take place) is a
> > > > > much
> > > > >
> > > > better
> > > >
> > > > > business model than hiding your assets away and people simply
> not
> > > > > getting
> > > > >
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > > > it at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > The evidence often clusters around PDFs downloads: see
> > > > >
> http://torrentfreak.com/alchemist-author-pirates-own-books-080124/where
> > > > > Paulo Coelho, author of "The Alchemist" says this:
> > > > >
> > > > > "In 2001, I sold 10,000 hard copies. And everyone was puzzled.
> We
> > > > > came
> > > > >
> > > > from
> > > >
> > > > > zero, from 1000, to 10,000. And then the next year we were over
> > > > > 100,000.
> > > > >
> > > > [.]
> > > >
> > > > > I thought that this is fantastic. You give to the reader the
> > > > > possibility
> > > > >
> > > > of
> > > >
> > > > > reading your books and choosing whether to buy it or not. [.]
> > > > > So, I went to BitTorrent and I got all my pirate editions. And I
> > > > > created
> > > > >
> > > > a
> > > >
> > > > > site called The Pirate Coelho."
> > > > >
> > > > > With the demise of music DRM apparently on the horizon, it's a
> hot
> > > > > topic
> > > > > with the major music labels, too. Ian Rogers from Yahoo! wrote a
> > > > >
> > > > fantastic
> > > >
> > > > > post with slides entitled "Losers wish for scarcity. Winners
> > > > > leverage
> > > > > scale". I've written about this on my blog:
> > > > > http://electronicmuseum.org.uk/2008/01/14/scarcity-vs-scale/ ...
> > > > >
> > > > > What would be fantastic (if unlikely) would be if a museum or
> > > > > gallery
> > > > >
> > > > agreed
> > > >
> > > > > to take part in a quantitative study: take one selection of
> images
> > > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > hide
> > > >
> > > > > them away behind watermarking, DRM and thumbnails; take another
> > > > > and make
> > > > > these widely and hugely available via Facebook, MySpace, Flickr,
> > > > >
> > > > blogging,
> > > >
> > > > > etc. Offer both sets for purchase in hi-res, then sit back and
> > > > > measure
> > > > >
> > > > over
> > > >
> > > > > a period of time. Common sense says that people will steal all
> the
> > > > > small
> > > > > ones and not bother buying: increasing bodies of evidence show
> the
> > > > >
> > > > opposite
> > > >
> > > > > is actually true.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd personally argue that once stuff is on the web, it's being
> > > > > "stolen"
> > > > > anyway, so we can fight this or go with it and do what we can to
> > > > >
> > > > encourage
> > > >
> > > > > sales off the back of the "scale". But I don't run a picture
> > > > > library so
> > > > >
> > > > I'm
> > > >
> > > > > more than ready to put my neck on the line
> > > > >
> > > > > So. Any museums going to step up to the "make it free"
> challenge?
> > > > > :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > ta
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > electronic museum
> > > > >
> > > > > ..thoughts on museums, the social web, innovation
> > > > >
> > > > > w: http://www.electronicmuseum.org.uk
> > > > > f: http://electronicmuseum.wordpress.com/feed
> > > > > e: [log in to unmask]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Ridge, Mia
> > > > >
> > > > <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Frankie Roberto wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > At the conference there did seem to be a vague consensus
> that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > should be moving towards giving access to these images (the
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > domain ones at the very least) away though - especially with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > general buzz around Flickr Commons.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts about this? And what are the
> > > > > > > barriers we need to overcome?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we gain more than we lose when we provide access to
> our
> > > > > images,
> > > > > > but then I'm an old hippie and open source geek.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we need to show that it's going to benefit our
> audiences
> > > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > >our
> > >
> > > > > institutions; and particularly that it's not going to lose money
> > > > > for
> > > > >
> > > > our
> > > >
> > > > > > institutions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd love to see the figures for total expenditure on
> commercial
> > > > > image
> > > > >
> > > > > > > licensing and print services versus total income - do these
> > > services
> > >
> > > > > currently make a profit, and would that profit be enhanced by
> > > > > increased
> > > > > > exposure and 'discoverability' or would that profit be dented
> if
> > > > > people
> > > > > > no longer feel the need to pay for images? Do our museums
> even
> > > > > know if
> > > > > > their image services are truly profitable, and if so does
> anyone
> > > > > want
> > > > >
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > > > > volunteer their data?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Someone's just started a discussion on the MCN list
> > > > >
> > > > (http://www.mcn.edu)
> > > >
> > > > > > with the subject 'Monetizing museum web sites' and that thread
> > > > > might
> > > > > > also throw up some useful suggestions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > cheers, Mia
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mia Ridge
> > > > > > Database Developer, Museum Systems Team
> > > > > > Museum of London Group
> > > > > > 46 Eagle Wharf Road
> > > > > > London. N1 7ED
> > > > > > Tel: 020 7410 2205 / 020 7814 5723
> > > > > > Fax: 020 7600 1058
> > > > > > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > > www.museumoflondon.org.uk
> > > > > > Museum of London is changing; our lower galleries will be
> closed
> > > > > while
> > > > > > they undergo a major new development. Visit
> > > > > www.museumoflondon.org.uk
> > > > >
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > > > > find out more.
> > > > > > London's Burning - explore how the Great Fire of London shaped
> > > > > the city
> > > > >
> > > > we
> > > >
> > > > > > see today www.museumoflondon.org.uk/londonsburning
> > > > > > Before printing, please think about the environment
> > > > > >
> > > > > > **************************************************
> > > > > > For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the
> list,
> > > > > visit
> > > > >
> > > > the
> > > >
> > > > > > website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> > > > > > **************************************************
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > **************************************************
> > > > > For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list,
> > > > > visit
> > > > >
> > > > the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> > > >
> > > > > **************************************************
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > **************************************************
> > > > For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list,
> visit
> > > > the
> > > > website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> > > > **************************************************
> > > >
> > > > **************************************************
> > > > For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list,
> > > > visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> > > > **************************************************
> > > >
> > > > **************************************************
> > > > For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list,
> > > > visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> > > > **************************************************
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > __________
> > > J. Trant [log in to unmask]
> > > Partner & Principal Consultant phone: +1 416 691 2516
> > > Archives & Museum Informatics fax: +1 416 352 6025
> > > 158 Lee Ave, Toronto
> > > Ontario M4E 2P3 Canada http://www.archimuse.com
> > > __________
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > __________
> > J. Trant [log in to unmask]
> > Partner & Principal Consultant phone: +1 416 691 2516
> > Archives & Museum Informatics fax: +1 416 352 6025
> > 158 Lee Ave, Toronto
> > Ontario M4E 2P3 Canada http://www.archimuse.com
> > __________
> >
> > **************************************************
> > For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit
> the
> > website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> > **************************************************
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________
>
> electronic museum
>
> ..thoughts on museums, the social web, innovation
>
> w: http://www.electronicmuseum.org.uk
> f: http://electronicmuseum.wordpress.com/feed
> e: [log in to unmask]
>
> **************************************************
> For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the
> website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> **************************************************
>
> **************************************************
> For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the
> website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> **************************************************
>
--
________________________________________________
electronic museum
..thoughts on museums, the social web, innovation
w: http://www.electronicmuseum.org.uk
f: http://electronicmuseum.wordpress.com/feed
e: [log in to unmask]
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the
website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
|
