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