Vi c t o r i a S t o b oC R E ATe , U n i v e r s i t y o f G l a s g o w ( w w w. c re a t e . a c . u k )

Archives, Digitisation and Copyright PhD

Early results from a survey of the UK archive sector

DIGITISATION AND RISK (AVERSION)

Dryden, “Copyright issues in the selection of archival material for internet access” (2008) Archival Science 123Two-thirds of institutions did not select items involving third-party copyrights for inclusion in digitisation projects

Institutions tend to develop digitisation strategies based on ease of copyright compliance:

depositor copyright material, or material in the public domain

COPYRIGHT AND RISKCODEBREAKERS: MAKERS OF MODERN

GENETICS

COPYRIGHT AND RISKSCOPING THE WELLCOME DIGITAL LIBRARY

Mass digitisation pilot project concerning the history of genetics in the 20th century (Crick, Watson, et al) incorporating both library and archive material

Wellcome Digital Library launched in 2012 with over 2M+ images available online

With thousands of potential rights holders, the Wellcome Library decided to adopt a risk-based approach to copyright compliance

WELLCOME LIBRARY RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

In-copyright material

Risk criteria for identifying rightsholders likely to object to publication

Diligent search methods to trace and contact those rightsholders

Sensitive material

Wellcome Library follows Access to Archives policy to determine access to sensitive personal data within collections

Takedown PolicyApplies to ALL material published on the Wellcome Library

website

RISK CRITERIACODEBREAKERS

HIGH RISK MEDIUM RISK

Author is a well-known literary figure, broadcaster,

artist

Author has (or had) a high public profile

The author/estate/publisher is known to actively defend

their copyright

Author is alive and known to have a literary estate as

recorded in the WATCH file

The relationship between the institution and the

author/estate/publisher is awkward

The material appears to have been published or broadcast

and/or prepared for commercial gain rather than

to advance academic knowledge or in a not-for-

profit context

DILIGENT SEARCH SOURCES

Who’s Who The WATCH File Google Wellcome Trust internal databases Third party archives Dictionary of National Biography Obituaries Wikipedia

The results of this process were recorded in an Access database

RISK-MANAGED RIGHTS CLEARANCECODEBREAKERS: THE RESULTS

NAMES IN COPYRIGHT DATABASE 160

Reliable contact details: total letters sent

134 84% of all rightsholders

Total replies 103 77% of those contacted

Permission granted 101 98% of respondents

Permission refused 2 2% of respondents

Did not respond 26 19% of those contacted

Low risk: put online after suitable delay

23 89% of non-respondents

High risk: do not put online 3 11% of non-respondents

Orphan Works 22 14% of those identified

In Progress 9

CODEBREAKERSSOME LESSONS LEARNED?

RESPONDENTS TEND TO GRANT PERMISSION

Codebreakers: 98% of respondents Jon Cohen Project: 95% of respondents

AND THEY DO SO WITHOUT SEEKING A FEE

Codebreakers: 1 respondent requested a charitable donation be made (and this related to library not archival material); no-one asked for a fee in relation to the digitisation of archive materialJon Cohen Project: 1 respondent asked for a copyright fee; the library refused, and the owner subsequently granted permission

ARCHIVES, DIGITISATION & COPYRIGHT PHD STUDY

If the literature has shown that rights clearance procedures impose prohibitive burdens on cultural institutions engaged in digitisation …

… how can we develop guidelines and strategies which will make the rights clearance process less burdensome for cultural institutions?

RATIONALE

There is very little previous research on how copyright law impacts the work of archivists within the UK

Copyright legislation in the UK has just gone through a process of reform, creating an ideal opportunity to look at the effects of the law

Is the portrayal of the archive sector as risk-averse justified?

What do rightsholders complain about (if they complain at all)?

UK research can tie into cognate research internationally (for example: current reform/negotiations in Europe and at WIPO)

BUT WHY CHOOSE A SURVEY?

We have very little evidence of how copyright law affects digitisation in UK, compared to the USA, Canada, New Zealand and many EU countries.

Other studies in this area have used a combination of questionnaire and telephone surveys to collect data.

The questionnaire survey is limited by the type of information it can collect, but data can be captured quickly.

Further case studies may counter the limitations of the survey method in understanding practice and decision-making.

CASE STUDIES

Case Studies provide in-depth descriptions of collections, processes, practice and decision-making, which is extremely useful for practitioners

However, they suffer from limited generalisation (e.g. the Wellcome Library), unless sufficient numbers can be generated, and a wide variety of collection types and organisations covered

The method I’ve chosen consists of interviews with project staff at various levels within each host institution, which are qualitatively coded to identify common/divergent practices and shared themes.

CONFIRMED & POTENTIAL CASE STUDIES

Project staff also share internal documentation and statistics, in order to compare the results of different rights clearance processes

Confirmed Potential

Glasgow School of Art British Library Sound Archive

University of Newcastle A business archive

University of Warwick A community archive

British Film Institute

University of Bradford

TARGET POPULATION?

This study is aimed at archives, not museums, libraries or galleries…but all of these institutions (and more) maintain and collect archives.

How do you define an archive service? Is it institutional, collecting, hybrid, internal, external or all of the above? Does it have to employ a qualified archivist?

Is the National Register of Archives the only reliable source of information about UK archive services?

NRA categories: Business, University, Special, Local and National.

SAMPLING

There are 2756 entries in the NRA database for UK archive services.

When you remove the duplicate entries, and take into account closures, mergers and collection moves, there are 2470.

This still includes institutions like Oxford and Cambridge Universities, which have multiple entries because each college holds a library, archive, and in some cases, a museum or gallery.

The NRA database does not include community archives, therefore 2470 cannot be said to be the total population of archive institutions in the UK.

OVERALL SECTOR NUMBERS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

BusinessLocalNationalSpecial University

83

627

117

1338

305

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Institutions were excluded from the population using the following criteria:

• If they hold less than 20 collections;

• If they do not provide basic details about the archive collections they hold on their website;

• If they do not provide basic contact details for their archive collections;

• If the archive is listed as ‘Private.’

This leaves an overall sample of 588.

MY SAMPLE

0

50

100

150

200

250

Business Local

National Special

University

83

223

54

172

94

WHAT KIND OF DIGITISATION?

Hudson and Kenyon and completed a telephone interview survey with c.200 Australian cultural heritage institutions

They found institutions engage in 3 types of digitisation:

Project-led

User-Demand

Administrative

SURVEY DESIGN

Survey design follows the three types of digitisation, with a section for questions relating to each.

There are also sections with gather demographic information, and reasons for not engaging in digitisation.

There is also a section which asks for details about complaints arising from digitisation.

They survey was made available in paper form, online at surveymonkey.com and via telephone interview.

Closed responses used wherever possible; 45 questions in total.

OTHER VARIABLES/INFORMATION

I’m interested in the particular variables that influence how copyright law (and risk appetite/aversion) effects digitisation within the UK archive sector Type of collections Type of digitisation

Size of institution Cataloguing levels

Staffing levels Depositor agreements

Operating budget Digitisation policies

Funding Accessibility

Reuse restrictions Disclaimers

Information sources Management

SURVEY DISTRIBUTION & RESPONSE

• Emails notifying respondents of the survey were sent out, with a link to the online survey following a week later

• 50 institutions were also selected to receive a paper copy of the questionnaire in addition to the emails

• 3 reminder emails were sent in addition to the notification and survey link emails

• 132 web-link responses• 9 telephone interviews• 9 paper forms returned

THE RESPONSES

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

BusinessLocalNationalSpecial University

150 participants from a sample of 588 institutions; yielding 123 useable responses

6

29

14

42

32

INSTITUTION TYPES

A further breakdown of the NRA categories shows:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ANNUAL BUDGETS?

< £10,000 £10,000-50,000

£50,000-100,000

£100,000-500,000

£500,000-1M£

1 - 10M£ > 10M£0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

112 responses

What is your archive service annual budget? This can include government grants, project funding, and revenue, etc.

WHICH KIND OF DIGITISATION?

119 responses

Is the archive service you work for currently engaged in the digitisation or copying of archive material, or has it been in the past?

(This can include any kind of digitisation or copying – any size of project for online publication, whether internal or external, on-demand copying for users, or internal administrative digitisation.)

Yes No0

20

40

60

80

100

120

113 6

PROJECT LED DIGITISATION?

112 responses

Is the archive service you work for currently engaged in the digitisation or copying of archive material, or has it been in the past? (This can include any kind of digitisation or copying – any size of project for online publication, whether internal or external, on-demand copying for users, or internal administrative digitisation.)

Yes No 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

73 39

NEXT STEPS

• Analyse the rest of the data from the survey and case studies, and feedback to the archive sector and the IPO

• Educate, train and support the cultural heritage sector, especially those institutions which decide to take sensible risks

• Opportunities to develop niche toolkits to support particular kinds of collections, i.e. film, photography etc

ARCHIVES AND COPYRIGHTDEVELOPING AN AGENDA FOR REFORM

www.create.ac.uk/archivesandcopyright/