 |
 |
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. > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:21:18 +0100 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: copyright licensing and museums > To: [log in to unmask] > > The opening plenary at the Museums and the Web 2008 was from Michael > Geist. He touched on many subjects, but one theme was copyright > licensing fees being charged by museums for access to digital > heritage. > > He's posted a column with more details of his argument here: > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2837/135/ (hat-tip to j trant > for spotting this). > > It's partly Canadian-centric, although he does praise the V&A for > dropping its charges for scholarly publications (although this doesn't > cover digital publications or web usage, I note). > > 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? > > Frankie Roberto > Science Museum website > > ************************************************** > 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 **************************************************