Page:A Culture of Copyright - A. Wallace.pdf/10



According to participants and data, UK GLAMs are almost a decade behind relatable peers in other countries, specifically in the United States and European Union (and Member States). More consistent legal authority in these jurisdictions correlates to greater open GLAM participation overall, and particularly approaches that publish content to the public domain, at higher qualities and in greater volumes. As a result, and in addition, UK GLAMs and research-led perspectives are notably absent from shaping many of the new questions emerging around unfettered access to digital heritage collections.

Interviews and web-based research revealed clear evidence of decline or stagnation. Many participants noted that open access conversations are now harder with COVID-19. Some participants have had to re-defend the open access policy due to revived commercialisation desires. The research revealed many examples of digital assets that are being reassessed and even removed from websites and open access platforms to bolster exclusivity and commercialisation goals.

A clear and binding legal principle protecting the public domain would propel the UK GLAM sector forward. However, this requires legislative reform or litigation, which are unlikely to happen. GLAMs (and other actors) may voluntarily align (or not) with the UK IPO’s statement that no copyright arises in digitised public domain works. To date, this has yet to occur. Participants raised the ethical issues involved while stressing the prevailing approach is made possible by a legal climate with variants of grey. These conditions result in a sector-wide practice that caters to copyright, commercialisation and control where the UK’s digital national collection is concerned.

There was unanimous consensus among interview participants that no GLAMs previously had or planned to enforce these disputed rights beyond a cease-and-desist notice.

The research revealed a traditional copyright approach leads to legacy data issues and more complex rights management processes, which can be complicated by staff turnover and the loss of institutional or project-specific knowledge. Such approaches can also impact staff efficiency and knowledge production within and across GLAMs, including what projects staff can pursue and what research can be undertaken due to desires to reserve certain collections from engagement (and open access obligations) for their potential commercial viability.

Many participants revealed turning to well-known CC0 collections in other countries to illustrate blog posts on the GLAM’s own website and other media. One participant noted the institutional contradiction of using openly licensed collections while operating a licensing service for their own, A Culture of Copyright