So many UK collections are incredibly low value in terms of licensing. What is being sacrificed so that GLAMs can retain control over licensing the few images that do bring in revenue? Who is making that sacrifice?
Another mentioned:
Value is a big thing that needs to be reassessed. It can’t be reduced to columns. It also needs to consider the value to the local economy for apps and products, but how do you measure that? What about the value for schools and the education sector? How do you measure that? […] Once you start talking to teachers who are engaging with [collections], graphic designers who use content, artists who need content, then you start to understand the value. But it’s not as simple as having a dashboard [or spreadsheet] where you can measure stuff. You need to build [tools] and distil impact into something people can understand.
While value-based assessments modelling may not be directly relevant to the lawfulness of IP licensing models, this data could help the sector reimagine commercialisation beyond copyright and move forward to benefit from the new opportunities that are activated by the collections’ public domain status.
Many participants commented that open access is, in fact, a good business model and commercial decision. One noted, “licensing services were haemorrhaging money, the legal basis was shaky, and public opinion and expectations made [the GLAM] vulnerable to bad will”. The opinion was that “In the absence of a robust commercial market, open access reduces the costs of dealing with inquiries. It’s a good business decision.” This decision was observed to positively benefit other income sources: “open access can get more people through the doors, especially community groups and locals who are repeat visitors” and drive up onsite revenue generation.
On a practical level, narrow copyright licensing models will never produce the value that open access can, but it is much easier to track.[1] Staff noted data on indirect revenue, new opportunities and value generated through open access were both difficult to produce and to present as representative. One participant commented, “Benefits are easy to frame as anecdotal one-offs. It becomes hard to counter the profit-making argument with ‘anecdotal’ evidence.” Another noted:
It’s difficult for institutions to articulate how important access has been to the work they do, how they do it and to the institution itself. Because it’s difficult to track, it’s at risk of being taken for granted. Open GLAM doesn’t make revenue. But it generates incredible value. It’s important we make the case around value for the institution, and to the institution, but staff just don’t have time.
Many pointed to data from the US and EU showing that open access increases brand value and the licensing opportunities that come with it.[2] For some, this also illustrated how chilling the lack of open access is on their ability to drive the brand forward. The collaboration aspect, curatorial input and the GLAM’s audience base remain desirable for commercial partnerships. At least one UK GLAM published CC0 collections online and sent the assets to a commercial image library, through which they receive a small income that costs nothing to operate.
In conclusion, copyright or exclusive control are not precursors to income generation or
- ↑ See also p. 1 of the 2015 Striking the Balance finding: “There is a growing body of evidence that open access to digital content for both commercial and non-commercial reuse drives value back to the existing business model or revenue streams of the institution.”
- ↑ Examples included: the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Cleveland Art Museum; Rijksmuseum; National Gallery of Denmark; Smithsonian Institution; J. Paul Getty Museum; and Nationalmuseum Sweden. See also http://siarchives.si.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/2016_03_10_OpenCollections_Public.pdf
