Page:A Culture of Copyright - A. Wallace.pdf/96

 creators (and collectors) of European descent and that the research undertaken focuses on these contributions.

Second, in general and with TaNC projects, commercialisation goals are holding assets back from being released under open licences and tools.

Third, commercial voices are disproportionately shaping whether, how and when open GLAM takes place, as discussed at length in previous sections. One participant noted the organisation was heading in the right direction but had reached a stalemate with the commercial team. While no ground has since been lost, raising the prospect of 'more open' revives previous tensions felt across the institution.

Fourth, in the aggregate, institutional decisions that shape what gets digitised, and which may be informed by the lack of copyright and the opportunity for commercialisation, can render collections relatively invisible, both digitally and for research.

Fifth, and as previously discussed, copyright fees also shape what research is undertaken by scholars within GLAMs, the UK and globally. One participant noted the "sweet irony of writing about art objects but not being able to include images" and observed that it was "becoming more common to switch topics, or the works featured, to write about things that do not implicate fees and the time involved in negotiating them".

Sixth, copyright fees do not just impact research on UK collections in the public domain. Copyright claims raise barriers to public innovations and the UK's technological and economic competitiveness with other markets.

Finally, copyright claims stall the generation of new cultural products and creations around the public domain. This impacts GLAMs' own abilities to collect new works made by the public that are inspired by their collections.

Some staff feel these conditions are negatively impacting the relevance of the collections, GLAMs and their role to the public. One participant stressed:

"Everything has to be brought back to why institutions are here. Copyright has negative obligations which restrict GLAMs from doing things. And it does depend on how you interpret it. But so much of this has been justified to say 'we can do that so long as the money flows back to the museum.' Instead of an 'image licensing service,' it should be 'searchable collections online.' Plus, there's a misplaced vanity about where users go to find images. It's not the collections, or the source. It's Google. Make images open and they will spread, and people will come to the website through those platforms."

Another felt a culture of "hyper-commercialisation" was limiting to UK GLAMs:

"Currently, GLAMs are too rewarded for innovative throwaway projects that engage with the latest thing rather than initiatives that develop or sustain long-term strategy. They've turned their interests to hyper-commercialisation opportunities, like NFTs. Commercial capture of museums have consolidated on Instagram and other commercial platforms, like Ancestry, rather than through public access."



Interviews revealed examples of open access goals, obligations, policies and benefits that are A Culture of Copyright