Page:A Culture of Copyright - A. Wallace.pdf/90

 Participants expressed disappointment that the present focus is on designing technical infrastructures for display and delivery, rather than for users and reuse, particularly where development projects are led by GLAMS with traditional copyright approaches to image licensing and reuse of digital collections.

Legitimate desires for attribution and integrity and enabling new research through high-quality display often inform these infrastructures. However, where legitimate rights have expired, they cannot be re-secured through technology or claims to new rights in reproduction media. Instead, these technologies should be explored for their potential to support citation best practice, high-resolution delivery of standardised image quality and the public's ability to trace the image to the organisation and to locate the best quality image, without imposing new restrictions or compromising the quality of access provided.

Interviews and web-based research revealed open access is often pitted against commercialisation goals and seen to jeopardize a GLAM's ability to self-generate revenue. However, data does not support this view.

Data provided by the Birmingham Museum Trust tracked commercialisation in the period surrounding the adoption of CC0 in May 2018. Annual licensing sales of £11,000 produced between 2016 and 2018 dropped to just over £4,000 in 2019. However, according to the Trust, the drop in income corresponds to the amount previously received from academics. In fact, staff from other GLAMS noted image licensing is dominated by academics who need particular images. The Trust noted licensing sales produced by Bridgeman Images have slowed more gradually, as global pricing becomes more competitive and/or more images are published for free. Interestingly, commercial sales of prints have remained the same.

Many participants stated their data supports another conclusion: a traditional copyright approach is itself a bad business decision. For the majority of GLAMS, it is more expensive to attempt to generate revenue through licensing services than it is to set collections free.

Participants unanimously agreed reduced government funding and pressures to self-generate income are barriers to open access goals. They also agreed that licensing income cannot make up for that shortfall, with one observing "the idea that it could gained currency in the early 2000s with the onset of digitisation and shiny new assets that could be monetised".

Conversations revealed many open access approaches are informed by various business driven and narrow understandings of copyright and the public domain, except for those already engaged in open GLAM:
 * Many view commercialisation and open access as being mutually exclusive, particularly with respect to the collection as a whole.
 * Many view themselves as rightsholders whose rights must be balanced alongside the

A Culture of Copyright