WP3: Gathering data from cultural institutions to inform and evaluate EnDOW Kris Erickson CREATe, University of Glasgow 20 th January 2016.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Developing an Internship Program Gaining Student Skills, Energy, and Creativity.
Advertisements

Orphan works and the cultural sector. A governmental organisation perspective Rossella Caffo Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali – Italy Coordinator.
1 Licences for Europe Working Group 3 Sub-group: Scope of potential for the WG to promote solutions with regard to television archives Helen Keefe, April.
Member States' Expert Group on Digitisation and Digital Preservation – 13. December 2007 Jakob H. Petersen Head of Division Danish Library Agency
Collection-level description & collection management: tool for the trade or information trade-off? Collection Description Focus Workshop 4 Newcastle, 8.
Collection-level description & the Information Landscape: users evaluate strategies for resource discovery Collection Description Focus Workshop 5 Cambridge,
Europeana: First World War Digitisation Project – Rights Experience Benjamin White, Head of Intellectual Property British Library.
“How Can Research Help Me?” Please make SURE your notes are similar to what I have written in mine.
BUILDING DIGITAL WEB ARCHIVES FOR FUTURE SCHOLARS Jani Stenvall
Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Additional support provided by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation Available at: collegeart.org/fair-use cmsimpact.org/fair-use.
David Boyd & Associates Integrated Tax System Procurement Assistance David Boyd & Associates.
Managing a Club A club is trying to persuade more people to take part. Some features of the club are: Open to all ages Takes part in competitions and.
The Million Book Project: Confronting Copyright Absurdity, Creating Copyright Hope Denise Troll Covey Associate Dean, Carnegie Mellon University Libraries.
Denise Troll Covey Principal Librarian for Special Projects The Impact of Current Copyright Law Erin Rhodes Copyright Permission Assistant Carnegie Mellon.
Unconditional Copyright Removing the Camouflage Denise Troll Covey Principal Librarian for Special Projects Erin Rhodes Copyright Permission Assistant.
School of something FACULTY OF OTHER University Library The Library’s Digital Repository or Whatever happened to MIDESS? Michael Emly Jonathan Ainsworth.
ER-0317/2/99 G R U P O S G A E Intellectual Property Rights in digitisation of education Part 1. Current problems in the face of digitisation. Massive.
The UK’s approach to orphan works Cambridge Archives Group 30 January 2015.
Preserving and Accessing Our Cultural Heritage – The Role of Copyright Law, Digitisation and the Internet The Community Dimension Dr. Jens Gaster King’s.
The Role of the Public Library in the Digital Age Sarah Ormes UKOLN University of Bath Bath, BA2 7AY UKOLN is funded by the Library and Information Commission,
Networks ∙ Services ∙ People John DYER TF-MSP Video Conference Community Procurement Support Building on the SPOT-ON Proposal Smart Procurement,
Victoria Stobo CREATe, University of Glasgow ( Archives, Digitisation and Copyright PhD Early results from a survey of the UK archive.
In 1993 Simon Fowler defined income generation by archives as ‘those activities organised by archival staff with the aim of raising.
Copyright © 2014 by The University of Kansas Choosing Questions and Planning the Evaluation.
© 2006 Jupitermedia Corporation Webcast TitleSuccessful Rollout Planning 1 January 19, :00pm EST, 11:00am PST George Spafford, President Spafford.
EDINA Multimedia Services: NewsFilm Online Vivienne Carr
Exploring the Feasibility of Seeking Copyright Permissions ALA Annual Conference June 16, 2001 Carole A. George, Ed. D. Carnegie Mellon University Libraries.
Promoting the uptake of e-books in UK further and higher education Linda Bennett.
5-7 November 2014 DR Workflow Practical Digital Content Management from Digital Libraries & Archives Perspective.
Oluwakemi Chima. The Congress shall have Power…To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors.
ICOLC October 2008 Digitising in copyright material: soft law approach to mass digitisation
The Changing Face of Exclusive Rights on Digital Cultural Content after the 2013 PSI Directive 3 rd LAPSI 2.0 Meeting – 10 th October 2014.
CAUL Strategic Plan Review 2003 Objectives & Actions.
Fear and Loathing in Glasvegas: Contemporary approaches to the copyright clearance headache Michelle Kaye Collections Development Officer Archives and.
Using Copyrighted Works Do I need permission to use this? Slides produced by the Copyright Education & Consultation Program.
IFRRO Legal Issues Forum Brussels – 9 June 2011 Martin Delaney Legal Director.
1 NumericNumeric Developing a statistical framework for measuring the digitisation of Europe’s cultural heritage  Numeric  Phillip Ramsdale The study.
HathiTrust’s Past, Present and Future. Short- and Long-term Functional Objectives Short-term Page turner mechanism (and Mobile!) Branding (overall initiative;
Copyright issues in digitization projects in Croatia Aleksandra Horvat, Ph.D., Prof. Daniela Živković, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof. Faculty of Humanities and Social.
Evaluation of Reference Services Dr. Dania Bilal IS 530 Spring 2006.
Opening up access to cultural heritage Jonathan Purday Senior Communications Advisor, Europeana.
IP LibCMASS, 5th September 2011 Librarians and cultural professionals as protectors of copyright and users’ rights Aleksandra Horvat University of Zagreb,
Licences for Europe WG 3: Public Broadcaster Perspective 4 March 2013, Helen Keefe Audiovisual and film heritage institutions.
Implementing an Institutional Repository: Part III 16 th North Carolina Serials Conference March 29, 2007 Resource Issues.
CAMERON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY LIBRARY SERVICES Fall 2009Program Quality Improvement Report
UK LOCKSS Alliance: Investigation into Private LOCKSS Networks Adam Rusbridge EDINA, University of Edinburgh.
Monitoring and Evaluation of Electronic Resource Use Unit 1.0: Introduction.
Brandon Butler FAIR USE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIANS April 3, 2012.
A NEW SERVICE TO THE ARCHIVAL COMMUNITY Digital Curation Associates, LLC.
Library Privileges and Educational Freedoms: Limits, Limitations and Licenses Prof. P. Bernt Hugenholtz Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam.
Copyright Law A Guide for Educators. Jolene Hartnett, RDH, BS Seattle Central College © 2015 Certain materials in this program are included under the.
Legal and copyright issues: experiences and advice Morag Greig.
Getting Permission When Your Use is Not Fair Slides produced by the Copyright Education & Consultation Program.
Development update Paul Mahony, Countryscape. What is Oppla?
Building on Other’s Creative Expression By: Alicia Trevino.
EnDOW Enhancing access to 20th Century Cultural Heritage through Distributed Orphan Works Clearance A project jointly funded by HERITAGE.
Copyright for teaching. 2 katelyncollins/category/week-5 CC BY.
Choosing Questions and Planning the Evaluation. What do we mean by choosing questions? Evaluation questions are the questions your evaluation is meant.
Crowdsourcing diligent search Maurizio Borghi Professor of Law Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management Bournemouth University 3rd.
Copyright Laws are Serious! As Teachers We Must Be Aware By: Amy Wethington.
Alison Prince Bodleian Libraries Web Manager Practical tips for creating online exhibitions Peter Pavement Surface Impression.
Copyright and the public domain: contradictory or complementary notions? Irini Stamatoudi, LL.M., Ph.D., General Director, Hellenic Copyright Organisation.
Openness, IP and Innovation Workshop on Contemporary Research Challenges University of Glasgow 16 th March 2016.
Digital Libraries: Threat to Copyright? Denise Troll Covey Principal Librarian for Special Projects Carnegie Mellon 3 rd International Conference on Digital.
IPR and the EThOS Project 28 th October 2008 Dr. Susan Copeland Senior Information Adviser (Research)
English Digital Project (EDP711S)
Orphan Works and other databases
The work of the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Environnent Jessica LEWIS European Observatory on.
Implementing an Institutional Repository: Part III
Common humanitarian technical library Tom Corsellis, Shelter Centre.
Presentation transcript:

WP3: Gathering data from cultural institutions to inform and evaluate EnDOW Kris Erickson CREATe, University of Glasgow 20 th January 2016

Aims of research Characterise the costs encountered by cultural institutions when digitising collections; Compare existing empirical research on digitisation projects to set benchmarks: proportion of orphan works, rate of success, and total cost per work; Assess cases where crowdsourcing is appropriate

Characterise costs of rights clearance InstitutionProjectWork Cost of exhibition development (calendar time, scheduling, space) Knowledge costs related to handling IP PR / reputation costs arising from dispute Fees to access databases used in DS Labour cost of examining works Labour cost of searching for rightsholders / DS Labour cost of corresponding with rightsholders (Covey (2005; Stobo et al, 2016)) Material cost of communicating with rightsholders (Covey, 2005) Alterations to project design incurred by rightsholder requests Fees paid to rightsholders located by DS Fees paid to license orphan works in UK scheme or ECL Alterations to display of work at request of rightsholder Takedown of work on rightsholder reemergence (Schofield & Urban, 2015) Compensation paid on rightsholder reemergence

Existing empirical studies InstitutionStudyNo. worksResults Carnegie Mellon University Libraries Troll Covey (2005) 277 in-copyright books Unable to identify rightsholder: 19% Rightsholder permission given:24% Permission not given: 30% No response: 27% Time spent on DS per work: ~3.25 hrs / $15USD UK Wellcome Library Vuopala (2010)1,400 postersUnable to identify rightsholder: 30% Rightsholder permission given:19% Permission not given: 3% No response: 48% Time spent on DS per work: 0.5 hrs / €50 UK National Archives Vuopala (2010)1,114 legal documents Unable to identify rightsholder: 35% Rightsholder permission given:61% Permission not given: 4% No response: 0% Time spent on DS per work: £31 GBP

Existing empirical studies cont. InstitutionStudyNo. worksResults British LibraryStratton (2011)140 books published between 1870 and 2010 Unable to identify rightsholder: 31% Rightsholder permission given:17% Permission not given: 26% No response: 26% Time spent on DS per work: 4 hrs BBCHargreaves (2011) IPO (2014) 1,000 hours of factual TV programming Unable to identify rightsholder: assumed 0% Rightsholder permission given: assumed 100% Time spent on DS per work: 6.5 hrs / £91 University of Glasgow Libraries Stobo et al (2016) Sample of 433 individual works in a collage / scrapbook Unable to identify rightsholder: 80% Rightsholder permission given:>8.5% Permission not given: 5% No response: 6.5% Time spent on DS per work: 0.2 hrs

Crowdsourcing? Institution Exhibition design Information on collection Digitisation Identify work ‘Diligent search’ Identify author Locate author Contact author Exhibit Manage exhibition of work Emerging rightsholder

Crowd configurations Massive, heavyweight (fandom) Focused heavyweight (PCI) Massive, lightweight (clicktivistm) Focused, lightweight (membership drive) Cost to contribute LowHigh Amount of contribution Low High Adapted from Haythornwaite (2009)

Interview candidates InstitutionScaleCollection type British Film InstituteNationalVarious Glasgow City ArchivesLocalVirtual Mitchell digitisation Cheshire Record OfficeLocalVarious Wakefield Record OfficeLocalVarious – mostly name- rich records Scottish Screen ArchiveSpecial/LocalVarious Leeds Heritage OnlineLocalPhotographic and Playbill collections Birmingham LibraryLocalVarious collections National Video Game Archive NationalPhysical hardware, software, websites & periodicals

Interview script 1.What are the resources available to conduct rights clearance in your organisation (number of archival staff, level of copyright knowledge)? 2.Please provide a description of the collection(s) that you wish(ed) to make available. 3.Please describe what you wanted to do with the collection(s): digitisation for purposes like education, public outreach, research, private study, or commercial uses like promotional material, exhibitions etc. 4.Please give an estimate of the overall number of works to be digitised in the collection(s), or awaiting digitisation in your overall collections (some institutions might engage in mass digitisation). 5.MB – ask about how they conducted diligent search (sources consulted, etc.). 6.Within this total, how many are ‘orphan works’ e.g. the copyright holder is unknown? 7.In the digitisation project described, please estimate the proportion of works for which a rightsholder was located. Within that group of works, how many gave permission, how many declined and how many did not respond?

Interview script cont… 7. Please summarise costs involved for the digitisation project you describe. (e.g. hours of staff time for copyright search and clearance, upload of data/processing, IPO application fees, other licensing fees, etc.). 8.If possible, please provide the data above in terms of hours per work and GBP per work, in a collection where rights clearance was attempted. 9. Have you had a takedown request or other contact from a rightsholder? How do you plan to manage requests if they arise? 10. Who are the eventual users of the digitised works? Can you think of a community who could undertake portions of rights clearance task if they were empowered to assist? 11. Highlight any thoughts, negatives or positives about the uses currently permitted by the UK licensing scheme or EU Directive (if applicable). 12. If your institution was going to digitise in future, what would be suggested technical or regulatory solutions for putting orphan works online?