Facet Publishing

Summary

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of copyright and other intellectual property rights, giving background and context to the development of intellectual property licensing, openness and the open movement. After describing rights such as those afforded by patents and trademarks, the chapter focuses on copyright and how original creative works are intellectually protected in the UK, Europe and internationally. A key section of the chapter addresses the ‘threshold of originality’, which can be of critical importance to cultural organisations engaged in digitisation work. Finally, the chapter describes the components and purposes of licensing and open licences and gives context to the concept of the public domain and the expiration of copyright.

Intellectual property rights

Licensing, openness and the open movement outlined in the preceding chapter partly arise as a reaction to the presence of intellectual property rights. These are a collection of associated property rights, which each afford protection to a particular aspect of intellectual creation. In the UK there are five intellectual property rights: patents, trademarks, registered designs, design right and copy - right. The first three of these rights are registered rights. Such rights do not arise naturally, and only afford protection following a successful application and registration process. The latter two rights, design right and copyright, are automatic rights, which arise naturally and do not need to be registered.

Patents

Patents provide protection for inventions and innovations. There is a particularly long tradition of patenting in the UK, with the first recorded English patent being granted in 1449. This grant provided John of Utynam, who had devised a novel glass-producing technique, a 20-year monopoly on the right to exploit his invention in England. Because the purpose of a patent is to grant a monopoly exploitation right to an inventor of something new, which has advanced the current state-of-the-art, registration places a heavy emphasis on the demonstra - tion of innovation and applicability.

Today patent registration authorities, such as the UK Intellectual Property Office, publish patent applications and grants online. This makes patenting something of a dichotomous activity. On the one hand, seeking a patent exposes an invention in minute detail. On the other hand, once registered, for a period of time, the patent holder enjoys the sole right to benefit from that invention.

Summary

We hope we have given you sufficient justification for and practical examples of open licensing so that you are now in a position to consider making the case for its implementation in your organisation.

You have seen how the open movement has evolved since the 1960s into a variety of sub-movements, such as open data, open educational resources, and open government and that unbeknownst to most people, openness is in fact at the centre of our modern digital lives. We have hopefully brought clarity and understanding to the legal and statutory frameworks that surround intellectual property rights, explained the threshold of originality uncertainty that exists in UK law and described the public domain, licensing terminology and open licensing frameworks. In acknowledging that cultural organisations are open by nature and having armed yourself with an awareness of the regulations and the benefits and risks associated with open licences, you should be well placed to advance the case for open in your organisation.

The case studies demonstrate some of the different approaches that organisations take to being open. Sometimes these approaches are ad hoc and opportunistic, as in the early days of open licensing at National Library of Scotland, sometimes they are part of a specific project, such as the Wikimedian in Residence at National Library of Wales, sometimes they address challenging intellectual property issues head on, such as at the Wellcome Library, and sometimes they grow up in response to government calls to open public information, as in the case of the British Library's open metadata strategy. The University of Edinburgh shows how policy, training and awareness can support the development and distribution of open educational resources, and warns us against the dangers of copyright debt when failing to record attribution in teaching materials. Statens Museum for Kunst shows us how even when starting small, the impact of open can be huge both in cultural and social terms, and can go on to drive further open licensing and engagement. The experiences of Newcastle Libraries show that allowing people to use and reuse even a modest amount of content openly can be a powerful demonstration to managers that concerns regarding risks are unlikely to be warranted.

Summary

Introduction

The Wellcome Library is one of the world's major resources for the study of medical history. We are primarily a special collections library, with a wide range of materials dating from ancient times to the present day. We embarked on a long-term mass digitisation programme in 2010, and over the past six years we have digitised – and worked with our partners to digitise – over 25 million images as well as hundreds of hours of digital video. We also collect born-digital archival and published works and clinical and biomedical digital imagery.

‘Good health makes life better. We want to improve health for everyone by helping great ideas to thrive.’ Guided by this core philosophy of the Wellcome Trust, of which we are a part, the Library's aim becomes clear: to create an environment for these great ideas to thrive. To do this we showcase a diversity of experiences of health across time and in different cultures and settings and make it possible for people to understand those experiences better. We can only achieve this by maximising the reach and impact of our collections.

‘Going digital’ is not enough – we must also ensure that all our digital assets are as open and accessible as possible, embracing the diversity in our audiences, and ensuring that we don't construct barriers where there need be none. This thread runs through everything we do – from collecting our materials, to describing, arranging and classifying them, to our user interface design and system development – and connects us to our users, their ideas and their creations. Open licensing is a key strategy to keeping this thread intact.

Unlocking 20th-century content

The limited availability of 20th-century material online – the so-called 20thcentury ‘black hole’– is a particular pain point for any cultural heritage institution wishing to open up its collections to a public audience (or any audience). This was the case before the EU Directive on Orphan Works and the UK implementation of the Orphan Works Licensing scheme, and it remains the case today. The risk to collection holders of orphan works are only a part of the problem.

Summary

So far, this book has explored the fundamentals of openness and licensing. We have looked at the provenance of the open movement and the realities of the current copyright environment. We have also advanced our arguments for why cultural heritage organisations should adopt an open approach. Before this book turns to the practical details of implementing open licences and using openly licensed material, we will look at a number of contributed case studies.

A range of organisations have undertaken efforts to adopt open approaches. These organisations, from public libraries to national museums, have used open licences to help make openness a viable reality in fields and disciplines as diverse as education, data, art and metadata. This section of the book explores how seven cultural and information organisations – Statens Museum for Kunst (National Gallery of Denmark), the National Library of Wales, the British Library, Newcastle Libraries, the National Library of Scotland, the Wellcome Library and the University of Edinburgh – have developed their approaches to being open and by using open licences have moulded, aided and stabilised these efforts.

These case studies have been contributed by experts and practitioners working within these organisations. Each study brings a distinct voice and experience, and each focuses on a particular aspect of openness and licensing.

We have provided these diverse case studies with the aim of rooting the concept of open licensing in real world experience. We hope that these examples – drawn from distinct fields, varied regions and organisations large and small – will enable practitioners in cultural heritage to further explore the benefits and realities of openness in practice and to gain valuable insight into the steps that others have taken and the lessons learned from early adopters.

Summary

The British Library and open bibliographic metadata

The British Library is the national library of the UK. Among its core responsibilities set out in the British Library Act 1972 is that of disseminating metadata describing its rich collections and UK publishing output since 1950 via the British National Bibliography (www.bl.uk/bibliographic/natbib.html). This requirement resulted in the Library offering bibliographic metadata services from its foundation. These services were originally operated commercially and were primarily aimed solely at the library community. However, in 2010 the British Library began to develop an open metadata strategy in response to calls from the UK government, such as Putting the Frontline First, which encouraged increased access to public sector data in order to promote transparency, economic growth and research. At the same time there was growing interest in the potential of linked data for improving reach to new users and exploiting new information sources. Such opportunities were felt compelling enough to warrant action despite the significant technical and licensing issues that needed to be addressed.

The new open metadata strategy aimed to remove constraints imposed by restrictive licensing and domain specific library standards (e.g. MARC21) and to develop new modes of access with communities using the metadata. It was believed that proactively enabling the reuse of metadata could increase its community value, improve access to information and culture, while reinforcing the relevance of libraries. However, in order to justify and sustain the initiative in a period of diminishing funding it was important to try to achieve institutional recognition via any licence model selected to support reuse. In addition, a number of risks required active management, notably:

Summary

Introduction

In this chapter we suggest that an open approach to licensing in cultural heritage should be developed. Building on the developments in the open movement and the realities of intellectual property rights set out earlier in this book, we argue that there should be openness in the sector. We describe why organisations should consider being open, looking in detail at both the core benefits and potential risks of an open approach.

Acting with purpose: why are you making digital collections available?

Digital raison d’être

Informed and logical decision making should guide the work of cultural institutions. A visitor to an exhibition of abstract art might expect to see works there by Piet Mondrian. Conversely, if the art of J. M. W. Turner was included it would appear out of place and visitors would reasonably question the decision making and structure behind the show.

The need to act with purpose is equally present in the newer, less tangible, and more fluid realms in which cultural heritage organisations are increasingly operating. If an art gallery intends to undertake a digitisation project, it is reasonable to expect that staff make informed decisions about what material will be captured, to what quality standards, and in what format images will be retained. A gallery preparing a digital exhibition on abstract art may seek to digitise works by Mondrian. It may be questionable for the gallery to use the launch of an abstract art exhibition to digitise works by Turner.

Cultural and information organisations need to make logical, strategic and sustainable decisions before, during and after digital capture, considering why material should be captured, how it will be managed before and after capture, and who it is being captured for. In short, organisations need to consider their digital raison d’être.

Strategy

The 2013 Enumerate study of nearly 1400 European cultural heritage institutions found that most (87%) had a digital collection. However, only around a third (36%) of the institutions had a distinct digitisation policy. Slightly fewer (34%) of the organisations actually had an explicit policy for the use of their digital collections. These figures indicate that while maintaining digital collections is common and increasingly common, only about one-third of institutions have dedicated policies on digitisation.

Summary

Introduction

The previous chapters and case studies have explained and demonstrated the need for, and benefits and challenges of, using open licences. We hope you are now convinced that open licensing is a viable proposition for encouraging the use and reuse of your organisation's resources. In this chapter we will take you through the steps necessary to implement open licensing: making the case to your senior managers, developing a policy and implementing it, and creating a sustainable open licensing environment.

How to make the case for open licensing

This first section explains how to begin the licensing process for organisations that have no established approach to licensing, open or otherwise. This is not only about making the case for open licensing, but above all about understanding your need for licensing, your licensing goals, and your organisation's willingness and appetite to engage with open licences in order to reach those goals. There are five steps involved in this process:

Summary

Starting small

Think Big. Start Small. Move Fast. (Michael Edson)

This simple piece of advice has been a key driving factor to achieve the ambition of opening up the digitised collection of Statens Museum for Kunst (National Gallery of Denmark; SMK). The advice was given to us in 2011 by Michael Edson, then Director of Web and New Media Strategy at The Smithsonian Institution. At the time, we were in the midst of a process discussing and reconsidering the image licensing policy for our online collection. Like so many other cultural heritage institutions around the world, we had extended our policy from the analogue era into the digital age. We were still charging licensing and transaction fees for use of digital images, even though, in principle, reproductions of artworks in our collection could now be distributed with zero marginal cost. And even though, in reality, most of our collection is in the public domain because of its age and therefore rightly belongs to the public. In the ‘forever business’ of cultural heritage, business as usual has a tendency to prevail.

At that particular moment, SMK had been contacted by Google staff. They wanted SMK to join their Art Project, which in its first launch had sported such notable museum collections as the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin, the Uffizi in Florence, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. It was one of those offers you cannot refuse. The invitation spurred some significant internal debates at SMK. We had been following the news of museums releasing their digitised collections using Creative Commons – from Rijksmuseum to Yale University. The digital team had been making the argument about open data, pointing to the potential of the Creative Commons system for our collection, and for a while we had internal discussions of pros and cons. But the call from Google proved to be the tipping point.

SMK is a publicly funded art museum. Google is a private company. If SMK were to join the Google Art Project, it would enter into a so-called public–private partnership, effectively handing over usage rights to digitised cultural heritage that is collectively owned and funded by the citizens of Denmark.

Summary

Introduction

This chapter outlines all the activities that need to take place before the project gains approval and can go ahead. Working through them when you are at the start of a potential project can help ensure that you get off to a good start.

At this early stage in the project process, think about defining the proposed project, the project leadership and management structures, and the people side of projects including team work and communications. Then think about technical aspects such as risk analysis, legal issues, finance, and project documentation. The result of this work is a project brief, a short written summary of the proposed project, which is then used to gain formal approval for the project.

Project initiation

Projects are initiated in many different ways: when developing a new strategy for the library service or introducing new technologies; following changes in the environment or funding; a crisis; or through personal interest. For example, a number of new library buildings have been developed in universities in response to changing demands and expectations of their student population. Many libraries have developed services that are accessible using new mobile technologies. Many public libraries have developed and implemented shared services as a result of financial pressures. In contrast, sometimes a library or information worker has a good idea during the course of their everyday work, in discussions with colleagues or as a result of attending a conference, and this then forms the basis of a project.

Coffin and Morrill (2015) discuss a model to promote innovation in Wisconsin Library Services (WiLS), a membership organisation involving over 600 libraries in Wisconsin USA, and their model helps to transform creative ideas into sound projects. They suggest that innovative projects have the following characteristics:

Summary

Introduction

The ability to understand and manage the money side of projects is an essential skill for all project managers. Although some library and information service projects are carried out within normal departmental budgets, many are funded by external sources so information workers become involved in obtaining external funding and then managing a budget. The focus of this chapter is funding and obtaining funds from external sources, including crowdfunding. The chapter also covers current approaches to funding, technical terms, external sources of funding, bidding and tendering for projects, managing the finances, and audits.

Current approaches to funding

Organisations in the public and private sector are facing financial challenges, so there is a shortage of funding, particularly for the library and information service. Traditionally, many library and information services have had access to external funds through competitive bidding.

Funding is available from a wide range of sources, including international organisations, central and regional governments, businesses, charitable and other special funds. However, these sources are decreasing and there is greater competition for funding. Consequently, funders are looking for excellent and extremely convincing applications. In recent years, new ways of generating funding have developed as a result of social media, and an important new potential source for library and information services is crowdfunding (see the section ‘Crowdfunding’ later in this chapter).

External funding organisations

Keeping up to date with possible sources of funding is a challenging task. This section alerts readers to the wide range of funding sources currently available in the UK but does not attempt to provide a comprehensive list of all potential sources. Readers in other countries are likely to obtain guidance from their professional body or other agencies. For example, the American Library Association provides a Frontline Fundraising Toolkit (see www.ala.org).

There is a diverse range of sources of funding and the types and availability of funds is constantly changing. Table 8.1 shows examples of funding bodies. Funding opportunities change over time as the priorities and access to funds of funding organisations change. Therefore anyone who is considering bidding for funding must do extensive research to identify current sources of funding and their current detailed requirements. Many information workers use specialists who provide up-to-date information and advice on funding matters.

Summary

Introduction

This chapter introduces the planning process and highlights the importance of detailed planning to successful project management. Project planning involves repeating some of the activities carried out at the previous stage in the project process, which resulted in the production of the project brief (Chapter 3). At the planning stage it is necessary to go into much more detail and work out the nuts and bolts of the project.

Small projects require an action plan with an associated plan to resource the project (people and finances) and undertake a risk analysis. Pull together this information with the original project brief (see Chapter 3) to create a project plan, which should provide sufficient information to gain approval for the plan and for the project to go ahead.

In large and complex projects Gantt charts and PERT diagrams (or equivalent tools) are required when creating a project plan, with the subsequent identification of the critical path (or their equivalent). The detail of the schedule helps you to calculate the workload of staff involved in the project and makes it possible to work out the detail of the project's documentation and communication processes and finances. The detailed plan can be pulled together as a report for the project sponsor to approve.

Researching the project

When researching the project external and internal analyses of the project environment are required.

External analysis

These are some questions to ask when carrying out an external analysis of the project environment:

Summary

Introduction

This chapter is concerned with project evaluation and methods of disseminating the outcomes of the project. A formal project evaluation process is often required by the funders or sponsors of projects and, in all types of projects, they are an important means of learning from the experience and sharing good practices. Individuals working on small, local projects may feel pressurised to move on to the next project as soon as their current one is complete but if they fail to reflect on and evaluate their work there is the danger that lessons are not learnt and mistakes repeated in later projects.

It is common practice to disseminate the outcomes of a project in order to gain publicity for the project, the library and information service and the parent organisation, and help share good practice and lessons learnt. Dissemination of the outcomes of the evaluation process is considered in the second part of this chapter, which covers reports, websites, social media, community events, presentations at meetings, conference papers, and posters, infographics and e-posters.

Project evaluation

An important part of the project process is project evaluation which is carried out for a number of reasons. As a management tool, it enables the project manager and others to identify their effectiveness, areas of strength and weakness, and lessons for the future. The outcomes of the evaluation process, such as reports or presentations, may be used to disseminate good practice and lessons learnt within the library and information service, their parent organisation, and the wider professional library community. They act as a marketing tool and a means of career progress for individuals. The funders or sponsors of projects normally require some kind of evaluation process to be carried out. Finally a user group or other agency may become involved in evaluating the project.

The project evaluation process entails answering questions such as:

Facet Publishing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Actions for selected content:

6023 results in Facet Publishing

Contents

3 - Copyright and licensing: a background

Summary

14 - Conclusion

Summary

10 - The Wellcome Library

Summary

Introduction to case studies

Summary

6 - The British Library experience of open metadata licensing

Summary

Acknowledgements

4 - Open licensing: the logical option for cultural heritage

Summary

Index

Frontmatter

12 - How to implement open licensing

Summary

List of figures and tables

5 - Small steps, big impact – how SMK became SMK Open

Summary

3 - Getting started

Summary

Contents

List of case studies

8 - The money side of projects

Summary

2 - An overview of project management

4 - Planning the project

Summary

6 - Evaluation and dissemination

Summary

Facet Publishing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

6023 results in Facet Publishing

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary