<<-----Original Message-----
From: Archivists, conservators and records managers.
On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
Sent: 12 June 2008 17:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Self service photography from microfilm>>

<<At Lancashire, when  we piloted self-service digital photography, we
decidede then not to allow readers to take "screen shots" with their own
cameras from the readers. However, we are now being asked by readers to
allow this, claiming that they can get good quality results which they can
manipulate yto allow them to read the image more easily than they can on
the reader ... We can see no obvious legal or conservation reason to
maintain our current position ( except possibly on microfilms of records
held elsewhere) and, I would appreciate the views of other supporting either
point of view.>>

<<----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shawcross Kath" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Self service photography from microfilm>>

<<We've only had one person ask to photograph microfiched which I allowed at
no charge. We don't charge for readers photographing archives either ... I
think one argument against this has nothing to do with copyright/ownership
but my management and definitely members saying I should be making money off
the reader/printer.>>

*********************************


When first asked, I was initially a bit sceptical as to whether satisfactory
digital photos could ever be taken from a microfilm reader.  However, when I
tried it myself experimentally, the results certainly seemed to be
reasonably OK - at least once the flash had been turned off to prevent
reflections.

Kath refers to the possible loss of revenue (presumably to recoup the
investment in microform readers - amongst other things).  To take her final
point a stage further, I expect that sooner of later it will become very
difficult - or virtually impossible - to prevent many such digital images
being posted on the Internet.  So long as they are reasonably legible, the
images won't necessarily need to be of the highest quality.  There are
doubtless many people who are either ignorant of any issues of copyright
(and even less of any undertakings given by record offices to depositors),
or they are largely indifferent to them. Quite commonly, there are reports
of writers and photographers who have discovered their work posted
without acknowledgment on websites on the other side of the world - often
with somebody else's copyright stamp having been added.  Many musicians and
recording artistes protest about the amount of their work which is being
illegally copied or downloaded, but their success in preventing it is quite
limited.  Are other organisations really likely to be significantly more
successful?

Already, I've noticed the suggestion being posed on one international
genealogical discussion group:  "I frequently see digital cameras being used
in record offices. Most of us have them nowadays. Why are they not being
used on parish registers? Would it be too expensive to use them for this
purpose, and put the resultant images on the web?"

Of course, it's not just a question of income from reader-printers.  If the
amount of privately-posted images grows substantially, it wouldn't much help
those offices which already sell images on microform, or who (like the
National Archives, and like Greater London  http://tinyurl.com/68m2gu)
have their own ambitious plans for use of digitisation and Internet
expansion.  Pirate copies (if that is the right term) wouldn't necessarily
all need to be on one large site.  A substantial number of images posted on
a lot of smaller sites - doubtless with their own internal systems of
links - could produce much the same effect.

The question which seems to be increasingly widespread amongst potential
users in certain quarters is not so much "what are you doing to make it
easier for us to visit your searchroom", but rather "what are you doing
about getting your most popular sources onto the Internet - so that we don't
ever need to visit your searchroom?"  Maybe there are a few offices who
would not be particularly worried about falling numbers coming through their
doors.  But for others, such a trend could ultimately lead to many
difficulties. Digitisation may seem very attractive to many users in the
short term. Looking to the longer term, it could lead (at least sometimes)
to increasing difficulty in getting the necessary resources for making
available those records of less immediate appeal. That could be particularly
true if the office was receiving less income due to the quantity of
competing images otherwise available on free sites.  And smaller services
would quite likely have fewer resources for campaigning against any such
losses of income.

So what should be done?   A whole reel of film could presumably be copied
within a few minutes. Ban large-scale digital photography?  Such a move
might be presented as trying to protect services for the longer term.  But
any ban would generally become harder to sustain if not paralleled
elsewhere. Well, like Bruce Jackson, I'm not offering any instant judgments.
With regard to allowing images from microfilm, Bruce has invited comments on
either side - that's fair enough. But it seems to me that the issue of what
subsequently happens to those images is extremely closely interlinked, and
that once the initial question has been raised, the whole debate then needs
to be widened.

I too would appreciate the views of others - supporting either point of
view.

Aidan Jones