Page:A Culture of Copyright - A. Wallace.pdf/82

 in its collection as possible” via the Search the Collection website.

The entry point for data collection on ‘open access’ was the copyright or terms of use policy. Other policies may exist across GLAM websites and not be referenced within these policies.

Despite whether a work is in the public domain or in-copyright, there are many legitimate reasons why digital collections cannot be made available for public reuse, legal and otherwise. However, such reasons are rarely explained to the user in a way that supports the public mission, educational remits and stewardship of the digital collections. Users need to understand open access, copyright and the public domain, in order to understand how they can use collections.

GLAMs can be perceived to be sources of authority based on the website terms and language presented to users. In reality, there are considerable levels of anxiety around the application of laws and the desire to comply and respect rights. Yet traditional copyright policies that treat in-copyright and public domain materials together and use dense legalese generally place the onus on the user to ensure no infringements of law occur. This assumes significant knowledge and understanding of the user. Such policies can become barriers to access and reuse, regardless of what their individual terms permit or prohibit. They reveal more about individual GLAM needs and attitudes than how users can access and reuse digital collections across the UK. The data demonstrates a pressing need to curtail these practices, for the benefit of GLAMs, their staff and users, and the UK economy.

These policies reveal incredibly risk averse approaches, even to public domain materials that should pose little to no risk for GLAM digitisation and public reuse. Many participants noted an absolute fear of copyright and the risk averse nature of institutions, particularly as present among national GLAMs. One commented risk was perceived in publicising the GLAM’s risk averse approach on the website as it could signpost to the public that infringing materials may be online. Another commented the sector as a whole was “more focused on worries than realities”. When asked whether disputes arose with rightsholders, participants gave minor examples of standard takedown requests or payment of ad-hoc licensing fees.

Participants also provided no or very few examples of dispute resolutions with users. Given there is no actual enforcement of these policies, including the copyright claim to digital surrogates, why have them? Such policies attempt to control reuse of public domain works in collections despite contradicting the UK IPO’s interpretation of copyright law and the drain on resources it causes to the GLAM.

By contrast, there is a real risk of TaNC projects and policies replicating these approaches and creating new barriers to the content and even the outputs created with public funding. Participants from all GLAMs expressed genuine concern around the future relevance of their collections: “If we don’t release this stuff, we’re going to get written out of history. Images that reappear are going to be the ones that are openly licensed or in the public domain.” Considered against the wider open GLAM climate, traditional practices paint a bleak future for the reuse of public domain heritage materials in UK collections.

A Culture of Copyright