Dear Dimi, Found this about revenue and marketing of the Rijksmuseum:
TL;Dr: 2012 income 180.000, cost 100.000, small piece of museum revenue, abandoned for marketing and policy reasons, was worth it (Sorry for the gaps, copied from PDF on mobile): "Different sizes for different prices In 2010, when nothing was available under open conditions, there was actually less revenue than in 2011, when the first set was made available. It is even more interesting to see that in 2012, there is an even more substantial increase in sales. This shows that releasing the medium quality images to the public in 2011 still allowed them to have a viable business model, and in fact increased the amount of image sales.13 Sustainability of image bank €181,000 was the total revenue from images of the Rijksmuseum in 2012. 14This is quite high, but represents only 0.2% of the total revenue of the Rijksmuseum during that period. From the annual report, it is not clear how many employee hours were spent on the sale of images, but in the interview with the collection managers, it was mentioned that the total employee costs were about €100,000 per year. During the interview, it was also mentioned that not every request would bring an equal amount of profit. Requests from a person or entity for access to a larger set or a particular collection were fairly easy to handle In October 2013 the Rijksmuseum decided to no longer charge for public domain images that were already digitised and started releasing their highest quality images for free. They preferred instead to focus their efforts on generating project funding from art foundations in order to digitise an entire collection. Such administrative costs are much lower, as a transaction is only made once and is a lot easier to handle than multiple private individuals. The fact that the Rijksmuseum is so well known for their open access policy has made getting project funding easier, it was in some cases a requirement to get the funding, according to the interviewees. For the Rijksmuseum the revenue from image sale was relatively small and they decided to abandon it all together as a way to create more goodwill, get more people familiar with their collection and attract them to come to the museum. http://pro.europeana.eu/publication/democratising-the-rijksmuseum Study US / Tanner 2004: "Even those services that claimed to recoup full costs generally did not account fully for salary costs or overhead expenses.” (Selbst jene (Bild-)Dienste, die behaupteten, die vollen Kosten wieder hereinzuholen, berücksichtigten generell Lohnkosten oder Gemeinkosten nicht in vollem Umfang.) Simon Tanner, „Reproduction Charging Models & Rights Policy for Digital Images in American Art Museums: A Mellon Foundation Study“ (King’s Digital Consultancy Services, 2004), https://www.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/pubs/USMuseum_SimonTanner.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20161111191846/http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/us-art.html. S. 35; darauf bezieht sich auch eine 2013 veröffentlichte Studie: Kelly, Council on Library and Information Resources, und Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Images of Works of Art in Museum Collections. “none can demonstrate a profit once the cost of administration and operation are included in the calculations” (niemand kann einen Gewinn aufweisen, sobald die Kosten für die Verwaltung und die Betriebskosten in die Berechnungen einbezogen werden) Sanderhoff, „This Belongs to You: On Openness and Sharing at Statens Museum for Kunst“. S. 70 This great Ted talk is about the very same topic, but without the numbers you are searching for “... getting the public, both scholars and the general public, to pay for digital images ... this is sort of an open secret, but in the vast majority of cases, this is not a business model that works.” (... die Öffentlichkeit, Wissenschaftler und die breite Öffentlichkeit, dazu zu bekommen, für digitale Bilder zu zahlen ... das ist eine Art offenes Geheimnis, jedoch in der überwiegenden Mehrzahl der Fälle ist dies kein Geschäftsmodell, das funktioniert.) „The wide open future of the art museum: Q&A with William Noel“, https://blog.ted.com/the-wide-open-future-of-the-art-museum-qa-with-william-noel/ As cited by Thomas Tunsch https://thtbln.blogspot.de/2015/07/wem-gehort-das-kulturelle-erbe.html All the best Bernd john cummings <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr., 19. Okt. 2018, 07:34: > Hi all > > I looked at this a few years ago for the UK and most of the national > museums refused to give the information in an Freedom of Information > request or didn't calculate it > > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/cheryl_hall > > One exception is the Natural History Museum who published it in their > annual accounts (they refused the FOI but made the info public) which shows > a loss of £155,000 over 5 years (this would be larger but they included > filming location profits in the calculation). > > Thanks > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, 20:33 Timothy Vollmer, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
