* sigh *

Annnnnyway... back to my original question: any museums out there willing to
give it a go by actively promoting their images rather than hiding them, and
then writing a report on the impact? It'd be good Museums and the Web
material :-)

re. Jennifer's point - or was it Jessica ;-) - no, of course museum images
aren't equal but how about this as a model: take 20 images that have made
roughly the same amount of money over the past X years, randomly divide into
two groups and then lock one group down while actively encouraging
borrowing, stealing, linking, embedding etc of the other. Come back in 6
months time and do a report on which has done better, both financially and
from a viral/coverage/marketing point of view.

Simple bear with simple brain, that's me

bye

Mike

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Nick Poole <[log in to unmask]>
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
> __________
>
> **************************************************
> 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
**************************************************