Re: [MCN-L] Open access but fees for publishers?

[Rob Lancefield on lists]

Hi all,

+1 for "applicable fees are calculated based on the work requested."

As Peter and Amalyah point out, it's important to separate out the 
question of (1) licensing fees as such (if open access, =zero) from (2) 
service charges if special services are needed to fulfill the request. 
An example here would be a request for an image of a public domain 
object not yet shot, and wanted sooner than we could shoot it as part of 
systematic imaging; in that situation, we'd have it shot as a rush 
one-off, charge the requestor a (cost recovery) fee for that rush work, 
and then still provide the image with no licensing fee as such.


Regarding publishers wanting a traditional license document, we try to 
help publishers and authors understand that if they simply print out our 
open access policy along with a screenshot of the relevant object record 
page (which has a thumbnail, object identification, and open access 
notice and links) for their files, they're good to go. This can take 
repeated reassurance at first ("That's really all I have to do?" "Yes." 
"Really?" "Really."); but once they're assured that it is that easy, 
they're happy--and ready to use that self-serve model next time.


Rob
--
Rob Lancefield
Manager of Museum Information Services / Registrar of Collections
Davison Art Center, Wesleyan University
301 High Street, Middletown CT 06459-0487 USA
rlancefield [at] wesleyan [dot] edu  |  tel. 860.685.2965

On 2/23/17 2:53 AM, Amalyah Keshet wrote:

Perian:

"Open Access but fees" is a non-starter. Open Access = free.

Previous comments have hit the major points:  there is the "free for personal 
use" model (and of course Fair Use), but you must
realize in advance that some commercial publishers/producers/clients will also take 
"free" literally and it certainly will not be worth the cost of pursuing them.

Some publishers, however, need to license:  they need that document for their 
own internal legal requirements. What you charge for is for providing that 
service, whether you send them the image file or they download it for free.

Each museum has its own business model and its own experience with income 
generated from image licensing. The income isn't an illusion in all cases and 
one can't generalize.  Even providing Open Access costs money.

The most salient point, however, is that made by Peter:  " ...applicable fees are 
calculated based on the work requested, not who is requesting the work."  Even with 
Open Access, there will always be clients with special requirements, and you will be 
providing professional services for them.  You need to cover your costs for that.  It 
doesn't matter who they are, a publisher or an advertiser or a  school art department. 
You are not so much selling the image files as the service.

It reminds me of something I have pointed out many times:  the traditional practice of 
charging different fees to commercial and "non-profit" clients doesn't hold up 
to scrutiny.  Non-profit clients almost always require more work on our part; sometimes 
researching  their questions and completing their orders adds up to weeks or drags out 
over months, not including the wait for payment.  Obviously they cost us far more in time 
and work, and when you think about it, they should be charged more than the typical 
commercial client whose order can be completed in an hour or two.

Again (thank you Peter): it's the work requested, not who is requesting the 
work.

Amalyah Keshet
Head of Image Resources & Copyright Management
The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

-
[Insert your disclaimer here]
-

-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Dueker, 
Peter
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:42 PM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Open access but fees for publishers?

Hi Perian,

My advice is to keep things as simple as possible.

The National Gallery of Art does not charge use, permission, or image access 
fees to download or use works of art available through Open Access.

We do charge processing fees to offset costs of providing additional imaging 
services, such as creating guide prints, making new photographs or customizing 
and formatting existing photography.

We don’t make any special fee schedules for publishers or other types of users. 
If someone can utilize the image available on NGA Images, great. If they need 
to order special processing the applicable fees are caclulated based on the 
work requested, not who is requesting the work.

Open Access and NGA Images (5 years old in March!) have been a great success 
for us institutionally. Glad to hear you are looking at this.

Peter Dueker
Head of Web and Imaging Services
National Gallery of Art, Washington

On 2/22/17, 12:40 PM, "mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Perian Sull

Re: [MCN-L] Open access but fees for publishers?

[Matt Morgan]

Perian, for examples you might look at software like anti-virus, 
unzipping & PDF-making utilities, etc., which often have "free for 
personal use" licensing models.


My experience has been that policing is unnecessary; anybody who might 
pay is inclined to pay, because it's easiest. Imagine you're a 
publisher--would you rather just pay a small fee, or contact your legal 
department to see if you maybe don't have to? Twenty minutes on the 
phone with a lawyer might cost more than the licensing fee.


But I agree with others that the larger impact may be on those who 
shouldn't have to pay being confused, and that's a cost to you ... I 
used to get calls all the time from people asking for permission to use 
images in clear fair use situations (presentations in educational 
settings, for example) and I wasn't even the right person to get those 
calls. So I'm sure there were a lot more calls others got, too. That's 
staff time and that costs something, so if you're angling for open 
access, that might be an argument to use.


Best,
Matt

On 02/22/2017 12:40 PM, Perian Sully wrote:

Good morning everyone (on the West Coast at least),

For those of you who are pursuing open access initiatives, do you carve out
an exception for publishers? Obviously, publishers can grab whatever they
want if assets are offered at full-resolution, and it's hard for us to
police, but publication fees are still (?) a quantifiable source of
additional income. So I'm guessing honor system is mostly in play here.

What restrictions do you still have? Print run limitations before a fee
kicks in? Type of publication? Don't worry about it at all?

Thanks all,

~Perian



___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer 
Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l@mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://mcn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mcn-l@mcn.edu/


___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer 
Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l@mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://mcn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mcn-l@mcn.edu/

Re: [MCN-L] Open access but fees for publishers?

[Dueker, Peter]

Hi Perian,

My advice is to keep things as simple as possible.


The National Gallery of Art does not charge use, permission, or image
access fees to download or use works of art available through Open Access.

We do charge processing fees to offset costs of providing additional
imaging services, such as creating guide prints, making new photographs or
customizing and formatting existing photography.

We don’t make any special fee schedules for publishers or other types of
users. If someone can utilize the image available on NGA Images, great. If
they need to order special processing the applicable fees are caclulated
based on the work requested, not who is requesting the work.

Open Access and NGA Images (5 years old in March!) have been a great
success for us institutionally. Glad to hear you are looking at this.


Peter Dueker
Head of Web and Imaging Services
National Gallery of Art, Washington





On 2/22/17, 12:40 PM, "mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Perian Sully"
 wrote:

>Good morning everyone (on the West Coast at least),
>
>For those of you who are pursuing open access initiatives, do you carve
>out
>an exception for publishers? Obviously, publishers can grab whatever they
>want if assets are offered at full-resolution, and it's hard for us to
>police, but publication fees are still (?) a quantifiable source of
>additional income. So I'm guessing honor system is mostly in play here.
>
>What restrictions do you still have? Print run limitations before a fee
>kicks in? Type of publication? Don't worry about it at all?
>
>Thanks all,
>
>~Perian

___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer 
Network (http://www.mcn.edu)

To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l@mcn.edu

To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://mcn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l

The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mcn-l@mcn.edu/