Here's a few links shared with me from some GLAM folks that might be
of interest...

Reaping the Benefits of Digitisation: Pilot study exploring revenue
generation from digitised collections through technological innovation
https://ewic.bcs.org/content/ConWebDoc/59616

Museum Policies and Art Images: Conflicting Objectives and Copyright
Overreaching
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2120210

Copyright, Museums and Licensing of Art Images
http://www.kressfoundation.org/research/copyright_museums_and_licensing_of_art_images/

cheers,
tvol




On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:10 AM Stephen LaPorte <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Dimi,
>
> This is a fantastic question. I think it's been investigated from
> different angles, but there is certainly room to improve and update the
> research.
>
> https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub157/
>
> "Revenue matters less than many institutions think it does. Cost recovery
> and even, in some cases, net income from commercial licensing activities
> are important considerations for museums. Although a past study has shown
> that virtually no museum rights and reproductions operation is a profit
> center (Tanner and Deegan 2002), and although museums generally acknowledge
> that their obligation and desire to provide information about the
> collection in as open a manner as possible trumps revenue concerns, revenue
> remains a topic of interest to many museums today."
>
> http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/1001/wipo_pub_1001.pdf
>
> "Recent developments in business models concerning the production and
> distribution of content on the Internet, coupled with a continued
> examination by museums of their missions and mandates, has led to an
> awareness that the making available of museum images is merely a means to a
> commercial end, and not the end in itself. Indeed, in a recent press
> release, the Victoria and Albert Museum announced that it would no longer
> charge fees for academic and scholarly reproduction and distribution of its
> images, claiming that while it earned approximately $250,000 a year from
> scholarly licensing programs, the overhead costs associated with licensing
> fees rendered their profits much less.140 What is not reported, but what is
> suspected, is that the Victoria and Albert Museum determined that it was
> smart business to allow its copyright-protected images to be made available
> for free, thereby increasing their circulation and delivering significant
> promotional opportunities back to the museum.
>
> This sort of decision-making in academic and educational institutions has
> been documented since 2001, when MIT undertook a similar inventory of its
> IP, allowing certain types of its academic content to be made available on
> the Internet without charge. While contributing to the public good and
> furthering the educational mission and mandate of a collecting institution
> is primordial, it is argued here that providing unfettered access to museum
> images is actually good business."
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:17 AM Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I need to brainstorm with this group on museum incomes.
>>
>> As you might know we are having some issues [1] with copyright and
>> related rights being claimed on digitisations of public domain works. We
>> are working on fixing this [2] over the legislative path in the EU. The
>> recently adopted mandate of the European Parliament [3], as bad as it was,
>> at least introduced a paragraph (Article 5.1a. & Article 5.1b.) that would
>> solve many of these issues.
>>
>> As this is a new article introduced by the European Parliament, the
>> Member States attachés in the Council are currently discussing it. One of
>> the worries they seem to be having is not to endager museum incomes. We
>> have shared the opinion that museum shop sales are mostly dependend on
>> location, rather than on exclusivity.
>>
>> It would, of course, be good to have some analysis/research/data on
>> museum income and exclusivity of works. Therefore I wanted to ask the list:
>>
>>    - Do you know of such research?
>>    - Do you know of someone who would be interested in doing such
>>    research? (We might have a grant available.)
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dimi
>>
>>
>> [1]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs
>> [2]https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/30/time-to-protect-pd/
>> [3]
>> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2018-0337
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Publicpolicy mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>>
>
>
> --
> Stephen LaPorte
> Legal Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical
> reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
> _______________________________________________
> Publicpolicy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>


-- 
Timothy Vollmer
Senior Manager, Public Policy
Creative Commons <https://creativecommons.org/>
@tvol <https://twitter.com/tvol>
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

Reply via email to