A Culture of Copyright/Appendix 3

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
←
Appendix 2. UK GLAM Policies on copyright and open access
A Culture of Copyright
by Andrea Wallace
Appendix 3. Top 10 countries with open GLAM participation
Appendix 4. Entry fees charged by global museums and galleries
→
3923642A Culture of Copyright — Appendix 3. Top 10 countries with open GLAM participationAndrea Wallace

​Appendix 3. Top 10 countries with open GLAM participation

Note: Each country profile ends with a list of primarily well-known institutions that do not engage in open GLAM activity. The list is illustrative rather than exhaustive to demonstrate which big players are missing and therefore excluded from the data.

# 1. United States - 292 instances

Figure 19. Publication platforms used in the United States[1]

Open GLAM platforms in the United States - Pie chart: Wikimedia Commons, 69.1%; Own website, 19.2%; Flickr, 9.6%; Sketchfab, 1.0%; Europeana, 0.7%; Internet Archive, 0.3%

Total volume: 10,662,295 assets

The United States leads on open GLAM instances. It also has the most legally compliant open GLAM practice. This could be due to greater legal consensus in case law on the question of copyright, which also informs and is cited in the Wikimedia Commons policy on digital surrogates.[2]

Indeed, the most common platform for publication is Wikimedia Commons (201 or 69.1% of US instances). This is partly due to a 2019 collaboration between the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) and Wikimedia Commons to incorporate the national aggregator's cultural artefacts into Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.[3] A year later, the DPLA also introduced a copyright status filter based on controlled rights fields, enabling users to search for media that can be used, shared, or modified for personal, educational, or commercial use.[4]

In addition, 56 US GLAMs publish open collections via their own website. Of these, 49 (16.8%) publish all eligible data to the public domain on their own websites, and often at medium to very high-resolution formats. Within the Smithsonian Institution alone, there are more than 19 organisations and collections that publish all eligible data to the public domain.[5] The Smithsonian ​Institution accounts for 3,942,729 CC0 assets (or 37.0%) of the total volume.

The US has a high representation of total instances that publish all eligible collections to the public domain: 50 total instances (or 17.1%). For comparative purposes, this list is provided on the next page.

GLAMs with collections on Flickr Commons and Wikimedia Commons primarily publish on a some eligible data basis.

Three points provide helpful context to the US data. First, works created by federal government employees in the course of employment automatically belong to the public domain.[6] This applies to employees of federal agencies like NASA, but not to employees of national cultural institutions like the Smithsonian Institution, which receives around 66% of funding from the federal government. Second, there is no federal law on whether copyright subsists in digital surrogates, although the Section 2 discussion of judicial interpretation suggests greater consensus among case law has positively impacted GLAM policies. Third, US GLAMs rely on a combination of public and private funding, with most US GLAMs receiving a majority of funding through private sector, philanthropic funding and self-generated revenue. While these factors may distinguish the US from the other countries with high representations of open GLAM, the outcome for GLAMs is the same: a decision to open collections remains a policy decision rather than one based on clear legal obligations.

Instances of all eligible data published to the public domain:

  • Albright-Knox
  • American Numismatic Society
  • Art Institute of Chicago
  • Barnes Foundation
  • Birmingham Museum of Art
  • Bowdoin College Museum of Art
  • Carnegie Hall Archives
  • Clark Art Institute
  • Cleveland Museum of Art
  • Cornell University Library
  • Davison Art Center, Wesleyan University
  • Detroit Institute of Arts
  • Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum
  • Grand Rapids Public Museum
  • Harvard Library
  • Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields
  • J. Paul Getty Trust
  • Library of Congress
  • Los Angeles County Museum of Art
  • Metropolitan Museum of Art
  • Minneapolis Institute of Art
  • NASA
  • National Archives and Records Administration
  • National Gallery of Art
  • New York Public Library
  • Newberry Library
  • Rhode Island School of Design Museum
  • Saint Louis Art Museum
  • Science History Institute
  • Smithsonian Institution (19+ collections)
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library
  • Walters Art Museum
  • Yale Center for British Art
  • Yale University Art Gallery
  • Yale University Library

Not included in the data: Carnegie Museum of Art; Huntington Library, Art Museum and Botanical Gardens; Museum of Fine Arts Boston; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston; Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City; Peabody Essex Museum; and Philadelphia Museum of Art.

​#2. Germany – 157 instances

Figure 20. Publication platforms used in Germany[7]

Open GLAM platforms in Germany - Pie chart: Coding Da Vinci, 81.1%; Own website, 12.1%; Local aggregator, 1.9%; German Digital Library, 9.6%; Wikimedia Commons, 7.0%; Europeana, 7.0%; Flickr, 0.6%

Total volume: 2,360,368 assets

In contrast to the US, most instances in Germany claim new rights and publish data using open licences (115 or 73.2% of Germany instances), which was lawful and supported by case law until very recently.

Germany’s highest court ruled in 2019 that related rights could arise in photographic reproductions of public domain works.[8] The court viewed these photographs as requiring technical skill, rather than creative skill, in finding copyright did not arise because the photographs did not meet the requisite ‘author’s own intellectual creation’ standard. Instead, German law at the time recognised a lesser form of protection for non-creative photographs, which the court found applied to the reproductions.[9] However, now that Germany has implemented Article 14, GLAMs can no longer claim such rights in reproductions of works of visual art in the public domain.

As demonstrated by the data, Coding da Vinci has significantly impacted instances of open GLAM in Germany, accounting for 61.1%. Coding da Vinci operates as both a hackathon and platform that enables GLAMs to prepare and publish open cultural data for public reuse. This dual format was initiated by the Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek, the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany, the Berlin Research and Competence Centre for Digitalisation (digiS) and Wikimedia Germany.[10]

The German Digital Library accounts for a significant volume of public domain compliant assets, contributed by Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, and Bibliothek für Bildungsgeschichtliche Forschung.

​These libraries have contributed 61.4% (1,448,485 assets) of the total volume in Germany.

Not included in the data: Deutsches Museum; Dresdner Zwinger; Germanisches Nationalmuseum; Naturmuseum Senckenberg; Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum; Staatsgalerie Stuttgart; and Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz (27 museums and cultural organisations around Berlin, with some exceptions).

​#3. Sweden – 80 instances

Figure 21. Publication platforms used in Sweden[11]

Open GLAM platforms in Sweden. Pie chart: Local aggregator, 62.5%; Flickr, 10.0%; Europeana, 16.3%; Own website, 15.0%; Wikimedia Commons, 5.0%

Total volume: 3,677,372 assets

The DigitaltMuseum, a platform funded by Arts Council Norway that aggregates collections of Sweden and Norway, accounts for 62.0% (or 50) of open GLAM instances and 47.1% (or 1,732,868 assets) of the total volume. Users can search collections via DigitaltMuseum, which links to collections management systems.[12]

In addition, the Swedish Open Cultural Heritage national aggregator, funded by the Swedish government and supported by the Swedish National Heritage Board, accounts for 16.5% (or 13) of open GLAM instances by delivering data to Europeana through an open API.[13]

GLAMs that publish higher volumes of public domain compliant assets via their own website include: Världskulturmuseet; Nationalmuseum; Hallwylska museet; Göteborgs stadsmuseum; Eskilstuna kommun.

In general, Sweden has a high representation of national GLAMs engaging with open access across local and national aggregators, external platforms and their own websites.

Not included in the data: Nordiska Akvarellmuseet; Göteborgs Konstmuseum; Tom Tits Experiment.

​#4. United Kingdom – 80 instances

Figure 22. Publication platforms used in the United Kingdom [14]

Open GLAM platforms in the United Kingdom. Pie chart: Local aggregator, 58.3%; Flickr, 10.0%; Europeana,8.6%; Own website, 8.6%; Wikimedia Commons, 7.4%; Sketchfab, 3.7%

Total volume: 10,487,115 assets

The majority of UK instances claim new rights and publish data using open licences (49 or 61.3% of instances). This is similar to current approaches in Germany and the Netherlands. However, across the EU, the practice of applying open licences is expected to shift to public domain tools in compliance with Article 14.

The majority of GLAMs use Art UK to publish open collections (47 or 58.8% of UK instances), followed by Flickr Commons (9) and Flickr (1) (together, 10 total or 12.5% of UK instances).

External platforms account for 91.3% (or 73) of open GLAM instances in the UK. A small minority (7 or 8.8%) publish open collections via their own website. These are the Birmingham Museums Trust, British Library, Natural History Museum, Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove, University of St Andrews, Wellcome Collection and York Museums Trust. Many also contribute to Art UK, Europeana and other external platforms.

The British Library accounts for 11.3% of the total volume, with 1,187,746 assets in the public domain. The Natural History Museum accounts for 68.0% of the total volume, 7,131,178 assets published via open licences and 85 assets in the public domain (7,131,263 total assets). In general, the United Kingdom has a low representation of national institutions engaging with open access. UK specific data is discussed further in Section 3.3.

Not included in the data: British Museum; Glasgow Museums; Government Art Collection; Imperial War Museum; The National Archives; National Army Museum; National Gallery; National Galleries Scotland; National Maritime Museum; National Museum Wales; National Museums Liverpool; National Museums Northern Ireland; National Museums of Scotland; National Portrait Gallery; National Records of Scotland; National Trust; Parliamentary Archives; Public Record Office of ​Northern Ireland; Royal Archives; Royal Armouries; Royal Collection Trust; Royal Museums Greenwich; Science Museum Group; Tate Gallery; Victoria & Albert Museum; and the Wallace Collection.

​#5. Poland – 73 instances

Figure 23. Publication platforms used in Poland[15]

Open GLAM platforms in Poland. Pie chart: Sketchfab, 58.9%; Europeana, 34.2%; Own website, 5.5%; Wikimedia Commons, 1.4%

'Total volume: 1,907,319 assets

In Poland, Sketchfab accounts for 58.9% (or 43) instances with a volume of 1,152 assets (or 0.06%). By contrast, Europeana accounts for 34.2% (or 25) instances with a volume of 1,790,985 assets (or 93.9%).

High Sketchfab representation stems from the Malopolska’s Virtual Museums project to digitise collections primarily using 3D technologies.[16] In addition to Sketchfab, high resolution assets (some at gigapixel resolution) from the 43 museums are available on the project platform accompanied by educational and contextual materials.[17] The project was co-funded by the Malopolska Institute of Culture, Economic Development Department and European Regional Fund.

Two national museums publish public domain compliant assets via their own website: Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie and Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie. Biblioteka Narodowa contributes the largest volume of public domain compliant assets via Europeana (580,794 or 30.5% of total volume in Poland).

Not included in the data: Muzeum Narodowe we Wrocławiu; Muzeum Narodowe w Gdańsku; Muzeum Narodowe w Poznań; Muzeum Narodowe w Szczecinie; Państwowe Muzeum Etnograficzne w Warszawie; Muzeum Narodowe w Lublinie; Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne w Warszawi; Muzeum Wojska Polskiego; Muzeum Narodowe w Kielcach.

​#6. France – 62 instances

Figure 24. Publication platforms used in France[18]

Open GLAM platforms in France. Pie chart: Own website, 50.0%; Local aggregator, 21.0%; Wikimedia Commons, 12.9%; Europeana, 8.1%; Internet Archive, 4.8%; Flickr, 3.2%

Total volume: 20,421,396 assets

As discussed above, France has a high rate of instances that publish all eligible collections to the public domain (33.9% of instances). Paris Musées accounts for 14 instances using primarily the CC0 tool, with a total contribution of 290,716 public domain compliant assets.

The most common statement is the Licence Ouverte (equivalent to CC BY), adopted by 24 GLAMs (38.7% of France instances).

Half of all instances (50.0%) publish assets via their own website. Another 21.0% (or 13) publish assets using a local aggregator (i.e., collections search platform) designed for GLAM groups (e.g., Paris Musées), rather than any national aggregator in France.[19]

The Centre National d'Études Spatiales (National Centre for Space Studies) contributes 19,340,944 open compliant assets or 94.7% of the total volume in France via its own website using the Licence Ouverte. The other 61 instances account for the remaining 1,080,452 assets (or 5.3%).

Not included in the data: Musée du Louvre; Musée d’Orsay; Bibliothèque nationale de France; Musée Rodin, Musée du Quai Branly; Château de Versailles; Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie; Musée de Cluny; Musée Guimet; Musée de la Marine; Musée national Eugène Delacroix; and Musée Gustave-Moreau.

​#7. Spain – 57 instances

Figure 25. Publication platforms used in Spain[20]

Open GLAM platforms in Spain . Pie chart: Europeana, 42.1%; Local aggregator, 33.3%; Wikimedia Commons, 14.0%; Own website, 7.0%; Sketchfab, 1.8%

Total volume: 1,976,818 assets

In Spain, Europeana accounts for 24 instances (or 42.1%) contributing 1,549,088 assets (or 78.4% of the total volume in Spain). Within this, Biblioteca Virtual de Prensa Histórica contributes 1,138,866 public domain compliant assets (or 57.6% of the total volume in Spain).

Galiciana, Biblioteca Dixital de Galicia, the digital library of Galicia (managed by the Library of Galicia) accounts for another 19 instances (or 33.3%) contributing 147,151 public domain compliant assets (or 7.4% of the total volume in Spain).[21]

Not included in the data: Museo Nacional del Prado; Museo Arqueológico Nacional; Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía; Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, Spain; Museo Nacional de Antropología; Museo de América; Museo Nacional Ciencias Naturales; Museo Nacional de Arte Romano; Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya; El Museo de Zaragoza; El Museo Naval; and Museo del Ejército.

​#8. Netherlands – 49 instances

Figure 26. Publication platforms used in the Netherlands[22]

Open GLAM platforms in the Netherlands. Pie chart: Europeana, 53.1%; Wikimedia Commons, 22.4%; Own website, 20.4%; Flickr, 4.1%

Total volume: 8,280,372 assets

Europeana accounts for 26 instances (or 53.1%) contributing 5,918,260 assets (or 71.5% of the total volume in the Netherlands).

Within this, Naturalis Biodiversity Center contributes 4,512,192 public domain compliant assets (or 54.5% of the total volume in the Netherlands) and the Koninklijke Bibliotheek contributes 837,988 public domain compliant assets.

Another 10 instances publish 1,968,443 assets via their own website (or 20.4% of the total volume in the Netherlands). Of these, two large contributors of public domain compliant assets include the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (873,452 assets) and the Rijksmuseum (705,542 assets).

Not included in the data: Groninger Museum; Het Scheepvaartmuseum; Huis Doorn; Kröller-Müller Museum; Kunstmuseum Den Haag; Museum Het Rembrandthuis; NEMO Science Museum; Stedelijk Museum Breda; and Volkenkunde in Leiden.

​#9. Norway – 40 instances

Figure 27. Publication platforms used in Norway[23]

Open GLAM platforms in Norway. Pie chart: Local aggregator, 60.0%; Europeana, 20.0%; Flickr, 10.0%; Own website, 10.0%

Total volume: 1,005,494 assets

As discussed, the local aggregator platform DigitaltMuseum provides access to assets in both Norway and Sweden, which users can filter by licence or GLAM.[24] Arts Council Norway financed the development of DigitaltMuseum, which accounts for 46.7% (or 469,673 assets) of the total volume in Norway.

Another 8 instances publish 132,640 assets via Europeana. The Vitenskapsmuseet contributes the largest volume, publishing 295,465 open compliant assets via its own website. The largest contributor of public domain compliant assets is Norsk Folkemuseum, with 95,944 assets published to Europeana.

Not included in the data: Bymuseet i Bergen; Frammuseet; Kunstindustrimuseet; Lofoten Krigsminnemuseet; Norsk luftfartsmuseum; Svalbardmuseet; and Vikingskipshuset på Bygdøy.

​#10. Switzerland – 34 instances

Figure 28. Publication platforms used in Switzerland[25]

Open GLAM platforms in Switzerland. Pie chart: Wikimedia Commons, 50.0%; Own website, 29.4%; Local aggregator, 17.6%; Flickr, 2.9%

Total volume: 674,299 assets

In June 2019, Switzerland passed a law to protect photographs that do not satisfy the threshold of originality necessary for copyright protection. Such photographs will receive a related rights protection irrespective of their “individual design.”[26]

The largest contributor is the Bildarchiv der ETH-Bibliothek, ETH Zürich, publishing 489,161 public domain compliant assets via its own website (or 72.5% of the total volume in Switzerland). The other 33 contribute the remaining 185,138 assets primarily via Wikimedia Commons, which accounts for 69,887 assets mostly published using CC BY-SA. No assets are published via Europeana.

Not included: Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig; Institut et Musée Voltaire; Kunsthaus Zürich; Kunstmuseum Bern; Landesmuseum Zürich; Musée Ariana; Musée d'Art et d'Histoire; Musée d’Ethnographie; Muséum d'histoire naturelle de Genève; Musée d'histoire des sciences de la Ville de Genève; Museum Rietberg; Schweizerisches Architekturmuseum; Zentrum Paul Klee; and Zunfthaus zur Meisen.

  1. ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
  2. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright
  3. ↑ https://dp.la/news/dpla-cultural-artifacts-coming-to-wikipedia-through-new-collaboration-with-wikimedia-foundation?mc_cid%3Def55eb9c56&mc_eid=[UNIQID]
  4. ↑ https://dp.la/about/rights-categories
  5. ↑ Anacostia Community Museum; Arthur M. Sackler Gallery; Arts and Industries Building; Cooper-Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum; Freer Gallery of Art; Hirshhom Museum and Sculpture Garden; National Air and Space Museum; National Air and Space Museum, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center; National Museum of African American History and Culture; National Museum of African Art; National Museum of American History; National Museum of Natural History; National Museum of the American Indian; National Portrait Gallery; National Postal Museum; The Renwick Gallery of the Smithsonian American Art Museum; Smithsonian American Art Museum; Smithsonian Gardens; Smithsonian Institution Archives; and Smithsonian Institution Libraries. The Smithsonian National Zoological Park and some of the research institutes are not included in the data.
  6. ↑ 17 USC 5 105
  7. ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
  8. ↑ German Federal Supreme Court, 20 December 2018, Case No. I ZR 104/17 – Museumsfotos
  9. ↑ For more on this case, see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-020-00961-8?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst
  10. ↑ https://codingdavinci.de/
  11. ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
  12. ↑ https://digitaltmuseum.org/
  13. ↑ https://www.raa.se/in-english/digital-services/about-soch/
  14. ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
  15. ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
  16. ↑ https://sketchfab.com/blogs/community/digitizing-art-and-history-from-40-malopolska-museums/
  17. ↑ https://muzea.malopolska.pl/
  18. ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
  19. ↑ https://www.parismuseescollections.paris.fr/en
  20. ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
  21. ↑ https://biblioteca.galiciana.gal/en/inicio/inicio.do
  22. ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
  23. ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
  24. ↑ https://digitaltmuseum.org/
  25. ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
  26. ↑ https://sab-photo.ch/en/nun-hat-es-geklappt/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=A_Culture_of_Copyright/Appendix_3&oldid=12236443"