Page:A Culture of Copyright - A. Wallace.pdf/50

 sample of 195 UK GLAMs, it already includes all known instances of open GLAM engagement. Accounting for all UK GLAMs would reduce the representative percentages of open GLAM engagement (i.e., open instances and data volume) to vanishingly small numbers. Moreover, 7 UK GLAMs contribute 99.3% of all UK open assets. The majority of open GLAM instances (50 or 62.5%) publish fewer than 100 assets using open licences or public domain tools, accounting for a total of 1,029 assets or 0.009% of the total volume in the UK.

These very different pictures demonstrate why a two-part coding for each institution is necessary. Each GLAM uses a mix of policies and practice to publish assets online; some are open, but most are not. Some assets are published due to open access obligations attached to funding; others are due to mandatory open licences or statements imposed by platforms. Although seven organisations have implemented open GLAM as a matter of policy and apply open licences or tools to all eligible collections, their practices vary significantly.

The takeaway is that the UK GLAM sector is already behind and appears to be falling further behind. Data shows a few big or national open GLAM instances and many small ones, but primarily a UK sector that takes a default approach to new copyright claims in the reproduction media generated around public domain collections. On the whole, these results are disappointing and obstructive to delivering on open access goals to the UK’s cultural collections.

The table below breaks down the dual coding of UK GLAMs by majority and most open approach across the seven identified categories.