A Culture of Copyright/Open GLAM
3. Open GLAM in the UK, and globally
“Our images now appear in journal articles, reports and random places as purely illustrative… we’ve seen them printed out and posted on school walls, or on birthday cards and other places. We no longer collect examples because there are too many!”
Staff at a UK open GLAM
3.1. Introducing the data
Before discussing the data in more depth, the following reminders may be helpful.[1]
First, the starting point of data collection is whether digital surrogates of public domain works are made available online.
Second, ‘open’ policies and licences refer to only those which permit commercial use of materials.
Third, the report follows the UK Intellectual Property Office’s position: no new rights arise in faithful reproductions of public domain works. Based on this, the following categories are useful to define:
- Public domain compliant assets are digital media published using public domain or CC0 tools. Under the UK IPO’s position, these tools and their application comply with UK law;
- Open compliant assets are digital media published using open licences, such as CC BY, CC BY-SA, or the Open Government Licence. Under the UK IPO’s position, these licences are misapplied and do not comply with UK law.
The figure 4 diagram illustrates where these tools and licences fall along the spectrum of rights and reuse.
Fourth, ‘all eligible data’ describes when GLAMs release all digital surrogates of public domain works under open licences and public domain tools. By contrast, ‘some eligible data’ describes when GLAMs release some digital surrogates of public domain works under open licences and tools on an individual project or output basis.
Fifth, data analysis should be seen as a baseline discussion or an ‘at least’ approach to quantifying digital collections and engagement with open access. There are many reasons for why data may vary, even within a given GLAM’s approach.[2] In reality, this is representative of the user experience when searching online for copyright policies and digital collections available for reuse.
Sixth, ‘instance’ refers to an institution; ‘volume’ refers to an amount. These are mutually exclusive. Importantly, volume does not imply unique assets. The same asset or group of assets may appear more than once if the institution has shared them via two or more platforms.Figure 4. Spectrum of Creative Commons licences and public domain tools[3]
Andrea Wallace, CC BY 4.0 To frame the discussion, a short summary of findings is included below.
Section 3.2. How the UK measures up to the global open GLAM picture:
- At least 1,208 institutions and organisations publish digital collections using open licences and public domain tools. The UK comprises 80 or 6.6% of these instances and ties with Sweden (80 or 6.6%) for third to the United States (292 or 24.2%) and Germany (157 or 13.0%).
- Of the top 10 countries with the highest representation of instances, those that publish all eligible data to the public domain are ordered as follows: the United States (50), France (21), Spain (15), Germany (14), Sweden (11), the Netherlands (8), the United Kingdom (6), Poland (4) and Norway and Sweden (1). In the UK these include Birmingham Museums Trust, National Library of Wales, Newcastle Libraries, Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove, Wellcome Collection and York Museums Trust.
- The majority of UK instances (73 or 91.3%) publish assets using open licences and public domain tools as exceptions to institutional policies that reserve rights in eligible data.
- Globally, GLAMs have released at least 70,931,426 open and public domain assets to a variety of platforms. Of these, UK GLAMs have published at least 10,487,115, accounting for 14.8% of all global open assets. 7 GLAMs were identified as contributing 99.3% of all UK contributions.
- 143 Museums and Galleries make all eligible data available under open licences and public domain tools. Of these, almost half (68 or 47.6%) provide free entry onsite and free reuse online. In the UK, this includes the Birmingham Museums Trust.
Section 3.3. How UK GLAMs compare to one another:
- Of the UK GLAM Sample of 195 GLAMs (which includes all UK instances from the Open GLAM Survey), 144 or 73.8% operate policies of closed or all rights reserved for eligible assets. In reality, this number is much higher. Accounting for all UK GLAMs would reduce the representative percentages of open instances and data volume to vanishingly small numbers.
- Seven GLAMs have contributed 99.3% of all UK open assets. These include: Natural History Museum (7,131,263), British Library (1,187,746), Portable Antiquities Scheme (1,038,191), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (595,140), Wellcome Collection (387,228), York Museums Trust (40,426) and Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove (28,010).
- The majority of open GLAM instances (50 or 62.5%) publish fewer than 100 assets using open licences or public domain tools, accounting for a total of 1,029 assets or 0.009% of the total volume in the UK.
- Based on instances, the primary platform for publication is Art UK (47 instances or 58.8%, contributing 9,810 assets). Based on volume, the primary platform for publication is the GLAM’s own website (6,664,534 assets or 63%, contributed by 9 instances).
- At least 35 GLAMs (or 17.9%) of the sample maintain technical protection measures that limit viewing, downloads or reuse of assets. A number of GLAMs have removed open assets from platforms.
3.2. A deep dive into the Open GLAM Survey: How does open GLAM in the UK measure up to the rest of the world?
Note: This section discusses data on all known instances of open GLAM activity. It takes a closer look at the GLAMs engaged to demonstrate the nuance and complexity of approaches taken.
The sample includes data as of 7 October 2021 from the Open GLAM Survey managed by Douglas McCarthy and Andrea Wallace.[4]
Each section signals whether the data discussed is Global, or for the United Kingdom and how it compares to the Rest of the world.
3.2.1. Open GLAM instances: geographic spread and open access scope
Globally, at least 1,208 institutions and organisations release some or all eligible data using open licences and public domain tools. Of these, the UK comprises 80 or 6.6% of open GLAM instances.
Global. GLAMs are located in 49 countries across Africa (1 total), Asia (28 total), Australasia (45 total), Europe (779 total), North America (319 total) and South America (33 total).[5]
A majority of 937 (77.6%) approach open access on a collections-by-collections basis. This means they release some eligible data under open licences or public domain tools. The remaining 271 (22.4%) approach open access as a matter of policy. This means they release all eligible data under open licences or public domain tools.
United Kingdom. GLAMs are distributed across the UK as follows: England (65 or 5.4% of Global GLAMs); Scotland (13 or 1.1%); Wales (2 or 0.2%). Museums, Universities and Other represent 80.0% (64) of open GLAMs. Libraries, Archives and Galleries represent 20.0% (16).
A majority (73 or 91.3% of UK GLAMs) release some eligible data under open licences or public domain tools. The remaining (7 or 8.7% of UK GLAMs) release all eligible data under open licences or public domain tools.
For total open GLAM instances, the UK (6.6%) and Sweden (6.6%) are third to the United States (24.2%) and Germany (13.0%). Despite this, the data shows 91.3% of UK instances approach open access as an exception, rather than the rule. Data on the top 10 countries is discussed further in Section 3.2.3 and in Appendix 3: Top 10 countries with open GLAM participation.
Figure 5. Global open GLAM instances[6]
.jpg)
.jpg)
Global. Of the total 1,208 GLAMs, 411 (34.0%) claim new rights and use open licences to publish assets generated around public domain works. Of the 411, there are 94 (7.8%) who take this position for all eligible data. The remaining 317 (26.2%) take this position for some eligible data.
The other 797 (66.0%) claim no new rights publish assets using public domain tools. Of the 797, there are 177 (14.7%) who take this position for all eligible data. The remaining 620 (51.3%) take this position for some eligible data. In EU Member States alone, new survey entries and the volume of public domain compliant assets are expected to skyrocket as GLAMs align policies with Article 14 of 2019 Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive and release all eligible data for any reuse.[12]
United Kingdom. Of the total 80 UK GLAMs, 49 (or 61.3%) claim new rights and use open licences to publish assets generated around public domain works. Based on the data immediately above, the UK is the inverse of the global position. Of these, 1 GLAM takes this position for all eligible data (Portable Antiquities Scheme). The remaining 48 take this position for some eligible data.
The other 31 (38.7% of UK) publish assets using public domain tools. Of the 31, there are 6 who take this position for all eligible data. These are Birmingham Museums Trust, National Library of Wales, Newcastle Libraries, Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove, Wellcome Collection and York Museums Trust. The remaining 25 (31.3% of UK) take this position for some eligible data.
3.2.3. Open GLAM participation in top 10 countries
For comparison, the top 10 countries with high open GLAM instances and their volume are discussed in detail in Appendix 3: Top 10 countries with open GLAM participation. Short summaries are provided below.
The United States (98.9%), Poland (97.2%) and Spain (78.9%) lead on the percentage of instances who publish eligible data to the public domain, rather than claim new rights and publish data using open licences.[13] However, countries that lead on the national percentage of instances that publish all eligible data to the public domain are France (33.9%) and Spain (26.3%). Instances that publish all eligible data to the public domain are ordered as follows: the United States (50), France (21), Spain (15), Germany (14), Sweden (11), the Netherlands (8), the United Kingdom (6), Poland (4) and Norway and Sweden (1).
Representation among these countries may be influenced by one or more factors, such as cultural mindset, legal clarity on the question of copyright, the presence of local or national aggregators, partnerships formed with external platforms, or targeted digitisation campaigns and hackathons.
United States – 292 instances; 10,662,295 assets. The US has the most legally compliant open GLAM practice among instances. The most common platform for publication is Wikimedia Commons (201 or 69.1% of US instances). 56 US instances publish open collections via their own website, often at medium to very high-resolution formats. The US has a high representation of total instances that publish all eligible collections to the public domain: 49 total instances (or 16.8% of US instances). The Smithsonian Institution accounts for 37.0% of the total volume for the US, with 3,942,729 CC0 assets.
Germany – 157 instances; 2,360,368 assets. Most instances in Germany claim new rights and publish data using open licences (115 or 72.3% of Germany instances). Until recently, this was lawful and supported by case law. The platform and project Coding da Vinci has significantly impacted instances of open GLAM in Germany, accounting for 96 (or 61.1% of Germany instances). The German Digital Library accounts for 61.4% of the total volume for Germany, with 1,448,485 assets in the public domain.
Sweden – 80 instances; 3,677,372 assets. The DigitaltMuseum, which aggregates collections of Sweden and Norway (funded by Arts Council Norway), accounts for 62.0% (or 50) of instances and 47.1% (or 1,732,868 assets) of the total volume for Sweden. 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 instances by delivering data to Europeana through an open API. 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.
United Kingdom – 80 instances; 10,487,115 assets. The majority of UK instances claim new rights and publish data using open licences (49 or 61.3%). The most common platform for publication is Art UK (47 or 58.8% of UK instances). External platforms account for 91.3% (or 73) of instances in the UK. The British Library accounts for 11.3% of the total volume for the UK, with 1,187,746 assets in the public domain. The Natural History Museum accounts for 68.0% of the total volume for the UK, 7,131,178 assets published via open licences and 85 assets in the public domain (7,131,263 total assets). In general, the UK has a low representation of national institutions engaging with open access.
Poland – 73 instances; 1,907,319 assets. Sketchfab accounts for 58.9% (or 43) instances contributing 1,152 assets (or 0.06%). High representation on Sketchfab stems from the Malopolska’s Virtual Museum Project. By contrast, Europeana accounts for 34.2% (or 25) instances contributing 1,790,985 assets (or 93.9%). Biblioteka Narodowa contributes the largest volume of public domain compliant assets via Europeana (580,794 or 30.5% of the total volume for Poland).
France – 62 instances; 20,421,396 assets. France has a high rate of instances that publish all eligible collections to the public domain (33.9% or 21 instances). Paris Musées accounts for 14 instances using primarily the CC0 tool, with a total contribution of 290,716 public domain compliant assets. 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. The Centre National d'Études Spatiales (National Centre for Space Studies) contributes 19,340,944 assets or 94.7% of the total volume for France via its own website using the Licence Ouverte.
Spain – 57 instances; 1,976,818 assets. Europeana accounts for 24 instances (or 42.1%) with a total volume of 1,549,088 assets (or 78.4%). Within this, Biblioteca Virtual de Prensa Histórica contributes 1,138,866 public domain compliant assets (or 57.6% of the total volume for 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 for Spain).
Netherlands – 49 instances; 8,280,372 assets. Europeana accounts for 26 instances (or 53.1%) contributing 5,918,260 assets (or 71.5% of the total volume for the Netherlands). Within this, Naturalis Biodiversity Center contributes 4,512,192 public domain compliant assets (or 54.5% of the total volume) 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 for 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).
Norway – 40 instances; 1,005,494 assets. The DigitaltMuseum, which aggregates collections of Sweden and Norway (funded by Arts Council Norway), accounts for 59.0% (or 23) of instances and 46.7% (or 469,673 assets) of the total volume for Norway. Another eight instances (or 20.5%) publish 132,640 assets (or 13.2% of the total volume for Norway) via Europeana. The Vitenskapsmuseet contributes the largest volume, publishing 295,465 open compliant assets (or 29.4% of the total volume for Norway) via its own website.
Switzerland – 34 instances; 674,299 assets. Wikimedia Commons accounts for 17 (or 50%) instances contributing 69,887 assets (or 10.4% of the total volume in Switzerland), primarily published via CC BY-SA. The largest contributor is the Bildarchiv der ETH-Bibliothek, ETH Zürich, publishing 489,161 public domain compliant assets via the own website (or 72.5% of the total volume in Switzerland). No assets are published via Europeana. In June 2019, Switzerland passed a law protecting non-original photographs, like a photographic reproduction of a public domain painting, via a neighbouring right.
Greater detail is provided in Appendix 3: Top 10 countries with open GLAM participation. The Open GLAM Survey provides a full list of all global instances, which can be sorted by country.Figure 11. Open access scope among the top 10 countries, and the remaining 39 countries[14]
Figure 12. Open access scope distributed by proportions[15]
Global. GLAMs have released at least 70,931,426 open and public domain assets to a variety of platforms online. This number includes all known assets released under both open licences and public domain tools.
United Kingdom. UK GLAMs have released at least 10,487,115 open and public domain assets (14.8% of all global open assets) to a variety of platforms online. Of these, 7 GLAMs were identified as contributing 10,409,004 or 99.3% of all UK contributions. These include the Natural History Museum (7,131,263), the British Library (1,187,746), the Portable Antiquities Scheme (1,038,191), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (595,140), Wellcome Collection (387,228), York Museums Trust (40,426), and the Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove (28,010).[16]
At least 1,307,021 (12.4% of UK assets) are public domain compliant. After isolating the British Library’s contribution of 1,187,746 (90.9% of UK public domain compliant assets), this number comes to 119,275 assets (9.1% of UK public domain compliant assets) that have been contributed by 31 UK GLAMs.
3.2.5. Museums & Galleries: free entry and open access
Data is also collected on entry fees for Museums and Galleries who publish all eligible collections to the public domain. Data is not collected for Libraries and Archives, as they rarely charge for entry.
Global. 143 Museums and Galleries make all eligible data available under open licences and public domain tools.[17] Of these, almost half (68 or 47.6%) provide free entry onsite and free reuse online: 25 are in the United States, 17 are in Sweden and 9 are in France (representing 51 of 68 GLAMs).[18] Distribution is shown in the figure 14.
Some of these organisations charge service fees for new image creation or delivery and/or continue commercialising high resolution versions. However, they also publish collections online for any reuse purpose, including commercial reuse.
Data is limited to the fee charged, rather than actual fees received or income generated from visitors onsite. It suggests the ability to charge for admission is neither a driver for adopting open access, nor a source of revenue that offsets any loss of income previously generated by exclusive control and licensing. Museums with higher entry fees, like the Rijksmuseum (€20), are the exception.
United Kingdom. National Museums and Galleries in the UK must provide free onsite access to the permanent collection as a condition of government Grant-in-aid funding. This requirement does not extend to open access to digital collections online. As discussed in Section 4., the National Portrait Gallery references this obligation in their policy and explains that licensing fees support the Gallery’s ability to provide free entry and care for its collections.[19] Only one UK Gallery (and Museum) provides free entry onsite and free reuse of public domain collections online as a matter of policy (i.e., all eligible data - public domain compliant): Birmingham Museums Trust.Figure 13. Open data volume: Rest of world compared to UK[20]
Note: This section discusses data on all 195 GLAMs in the UK GLAM Sample, which is different to the sample discussed immediately above.
Created for this report, the UK GLAM Sample initially consisted of 350 organisations, including Independent Research Organisations (IROs) and Research Centre Institutes (RCIs), GLAMs associated with TaNC Foundation and Discovery projects, UK GLAMs in the Open GLAM Survey, and other UK GLAMs and related organisations. An initial review was performed to identify and remove organisations outside the scope of inquiry (e.g., no permanent collections). The final sample of 195 organisations are distributed across the UK as follows: Channel Islands (1); England (154); Isle of Man (1); Northern Ireland (5); Scotland (28); Wales (6).
This section looks at the extent to which UK GLAMs engage with open GLAM and how UK GLAMs compare overall.[22] Two datasets in this sample do not appear in the global data on UK GLAM instances: the Archaeology Data Service and Culture Grid.[23] This brings the total UK open GLAM count to 82, rather than 80, for the purposes of this section.
3.3.1. Categorisation of GLAMs
This phase of the research sought to understand how UK GLAMs publish collections across websites and external platforms, and under what reuse parameters. For each GLAM included in the sample, the policies were assessed from two different lines of inquiry:
What is the majority approach taken by the GLAM; and
What is the most open approach taken by the GLAM (i.e., the application of open licences or public domain tools[24])?
It is important to view each GLAM against these two axes, as they can overlap or diverge significantly. Interpreting them in isolation reveals two very different pictures of UK engagement and fails to capture the complexity of each GLAM’s approach, as well as the overall trends across the sector.
For example, if we investigate a GLAM’s most open approach, the picture is similar to the UK data discussed in Section 3.2. In total, 82 or 42.1% of UK organisations surveyed publish one or more assets using open licences or public domain tools, contributing a total of 10,487,115 open assets or 14.8% of all global assets (that could be counted via publication platforms). A total of 113 or 57.9% in the UK GLAM Sample have not yet engaged with open access. This paints a relatively healthy picture of open GLAM for the UK heritage sector.
However, if we look at the majority approach taken by each GLAM and collect data such as where assets are published, how many and under what tools and licences, we understand that 144 or 73.8% in the UK GLAM Sample operate policies of closed or all rights reserved for eligible assets. In reality, this number is much higher. Because the discussion in this section pertains to the limited sample of 195 UK GLAMs, it already includes all known instances of open GLAM engagement. Accounting for all UK GLAMs would reduce the representative percentages of open GLAM engagement (i.e., open instances and data volume) to vanishingly small numbers. Moreover, 7 UK GLAMs contribute 99.3% of all UK open assets. The majority of open GLAM instances (50 or 62.5%) publish fewer than 100 assets using open licences or public domain tools, accounting for a total of 1,029 assets or 0.009% of the total volume in the UK.
These very different pictures demonstrate why a two-part coding for each institution is necessary. Each GLAM uses a mix of policies and practice to publish assets online; some are open, but most are not. Some assets are published due to open access obligations attached to funding; others are due to mandatory open licences or statements imposed by platforms. Although seven organisations have implemented open GLAM as a matter of policy and apply open licences or tools to all eligible collections, their practices vary significantly.
The takeaway is that the UK GLAM sector is already behind and appears to be falling further behind. Data shows a few big or national open GLAM instances and many small ones, but primarily a UK sector that takes a default approach to new copyright claims in the reproduction media generated around public domain collections. On the whole, these results are disappointing and obstructive to delivering on open access goals to the UK’s cultural collections.
The table below breaks down the dual coding of UK GLAMs by majority and most open approach across the seven identified categories.
| Category | Description | Majority approach | Most open approach |
|---|---|---|---|
| All rights reserved | Claims and reserves all rights that may arise under intellectual property law across all platforms | 108 (55.4%) | 39 (20.0%) |
| Closed licences by exception | Claims and reserves rights that may arise under intellectual property law across all platforms, except for photographs of sculptures produced for an Art UK project funded by The National Lottery Heritage Fund | 2 (1.0%) | 24 (12.3%) |
| Closed licences | Claims and reserves rights that may arise under intellectual property law across all platforms and publishes some or all eligible data via closed licences | 34 (17.4%) | 50 (25.6%) |
| Some eligible data—open compliant | Claims and reserves rights that may arise under intellectual property law across all platforms and releases some eligible data via open licences | 33 (16.9%) | 49 (25.1%) |
| All eligible data—open compliant | Claims and reserves rights that may arise under intellectual property law across all platforms and releases all eligible data via open licences | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.5%) |
| Some eligible data—no new (public domain compliant) | Claims and reserves rights that may arise under intellectual rights property law across all platforms and releases some eligible data via public domain tools | 11 (5.6%) | 26 (13.3%) |
| All eligible data—no new rights (public domain compliant) | Claims no new rights across all platforms and releases all eligible data via public domain tools | 6 (3.1%) | 6 (3.1%) |
Note: Volume does not imply unique assets. There can be overlap where GLAMs contribute open assets to more than one platform.
Seven GLAMs have contributed 99.3% of all UK open assets. Large contributors (more than 25,000 assets) include:
Natural History Museum: 7,131,263 open compliant assets (primarily CC BY via Own website and Europeana);[27]
British Library: 1,187,746 public domain compliant assets (public domain or no known copyright restrictions via Own website, Flickr Commons, and Europeana);[28]
Portable Antiquities Scheme: 1,038,191 open compliant assets (CC BY via Own website and Europeana);[29]
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: 595,140 open compliant assets (CC BY via Europeana); Wellcome Collection: 387,228 open and public domain compliant assets (CC BY and CC0 via Own website and Europeana);[30]
York Museums Trust: 40,426 public domain compliant assets (Public Domain Mark via Own website and Art UK);[31]
Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove: 28,010 open and public domain compliant assets (CC0, Public Domain and CC BY-SA via Own website and Sketchfab).[32] Figure 17. Distribution of GLAMs contributing open assets by total volume[33]
The majority of open GLAM instances publish fewer than 100 assets using open licences or public domain tools. In total, 50 UK GLAMs (comprising 62.5% of UK instances) each publish fewer than 100 open assets accounting for 1,029 (or 0.009%) of the total volume in the UK. These 50 UK GLAMs release open assets across a number of platforms, but not their own websites. Most publish via Art UK (marked below as *, with exceptions specified
| 50 to 99 assets - 8 GLAMs | 10 to 49 assets - 16 GLAMs | 2 to 9 assets - 18 GLAMs | 1 asset - 8 GLAMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herbert Art Gallery and Museum (50, Wikimedia Commons); Buxton Museum & Art Gallery (56*); University of Dundee Museum Collections (56, Sketchfab); New College (57*); Museum of Domestic Design & Architecture (65, Europeana); Mary Rose Trust (71, Wikimedia Commons and Sketchfab); Jerwood Library of the Performing Arts (80, Flickr Commons); Leicester Museums and Galleries (99, Europeana) | Royston & District Museum & Art Gallery (10*); Aberdeenshire Council (11*); Dorman Museum (13*); Lewes Town Hall (13*); York Army Museum (15*); Jerwood Gallery (16*); Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (18*); University of Manchester (23*); Newark Town Hall Museum and Art Gallery (24*); Carisbrooke Castle Museum (27*); North Ayrshire Heritage Centre (32*); St Peter's College (36*); Braemar Castle (36, Wikimedia Commons); Scottish Maritime Museum (46, Sketchfab); Laurence Sterne Trust (48, Wikimedia Commons); Harris Manchester College (49*) | University of York (2*); Hastings Library (2*); Portico Library and Gallery (2"); Captain Cook Birthplace Museum (2*); Coventry Council House (2*); Cricklade Town Hall (2*); Dereham Assembly Rooms (2*); Holmesdale Natural History Club (2*); University of Sussex (3*); Tenby Town Council (3*); Eden Camp Modern History Theme Museum (4*); Brackley Town Hall (4*); Beith Library (4*); Tank Museum (5*); Maldon Moot Hall (5*); Laurels (8*); Middlesbrough Town Hall (9*); Perth Museums and Galleries (9*) | London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (1*); Hepworth Wakefield (1*); Toynbee Hall (1*); Ashwell Village Museum (1*); Bath Postal Museum (1*); Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum (1*); Bradfield Parish Council Offices (1*); Greater Manchester County Record Office (1") |
Of these 50 GLAMS, 12 are public domain compliant, releasing a total of 268 assets to the public domain. The remaining 38 GLAMS claim new rights and publish a total of 761 open compliant assets.
3.3.3. Breakdown of digital collections on GLAM websites
The research recorded how the 195 GLAMS make collections available on their websites and coded findings by the following categories:
- No collections. Websites have no digital collections, even for illustrative purposes.
- Searchable catalogue only. Websites host a searchable catalogue of records only.
- Illustrative collections only. Websites use images of collections to illustrate the website and advertise the types of collections or objects available onsite.
- Searchable digital collections. Websites host a searchable catalogue of records accompanied by images and other media.
No collections. 42 GLAMs publish no collections on their website. Only 2 have a formal copyright policy. 40 publish assets on Art UK. 31 GLAMs publish open assets: 28 use Art UK; 2 use Wikimedia Commons; 1 uses Flickr Commons and Wikimedia Commons. These are primarily smaller organisations.
- Ashwell Village Museum
- Brackley Town Hall
- Bradfield Parish Council Offices
- Braemar Castle
- Buxton Museum & Art Gallery
- Carisbrooke Castle Museum
- Coventry Council House
- Cricklade Town Hall
- Dereham Assembly Rooms
- Eden Camp Modern History Theme Museum
- Greater Manchester County Record Office
- Harris Manchester College
- Holmesdale Natural History Club
- Laurels
- Lewes Town Hall
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
- Maldon Moot Hall
- Middlesbrough Town Hall
- Museum of Hartlepool
- New College
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital
- North Ayrshire Heritage Centre
- Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum
- Royal Pump Room
- Royston & District Museum & Art Gallery
- St Peter's College
- Tenby Town Council
- Thirlestane Castle
- Toynbee Hall
- University of Manchester
- University of Sussex
Searchable catalogue only. 11 GLAMs maintain a catalogue of only records. Only 3 have a formal copyright policy. 5 publish assets on Art UK. 4 GLAMs publish open assets: 3 use Art UK; 1 uses Flickr. These are primarily smaller organisations.
- Aberdeenshire Council
- Beith Library
- Hastings Library
- Newcastle Libraries
Illustrative collections only. 26 GLAMs maintain websites with illustrative collections only. Only 8 have a formal copyright policy. 25 publish assets on Art UK. 10 publish open assets: 9 use Art UK; 1 uses Wikimedia Commons and Sketchfab. These are primarily smaller organisations.
- Bath Postal Museum
- Captain Cook Birthplace Museum
- Dorman Museum
- Hepworth Wakefield
- Jerwood Gallery
- Mary Rose Trust
- Newark Town Hall Museum and Art Gallery
- Royal Watercolour Society
- Tank Museum
- York Army Museum
Searchable digital collections. 121 GLAMs maintain searchable digital collections on their own website. Of these, 28 lack any formal copyright policy. Some display a copyright notice near an image or in a footer. Others use watermarks on digital assets. 99 publish assets on Art UK. 35 GLAMs publish open assets. The platform spread is more diverse, including their own website, Flickr Commons, Sketchfab, Art UK, Europeana, and Wikimedia Commons. Many publish on more than one platform.
- Aberdeenshire Museums Service
- Archaeology Data Service
- Birmingham Museums Trust
- British Library
- Culture Grid
- East Riding Archives
- Herbert Art Gallery and Museum
- Heritage Doncaster
- Horniman Museum and Gardens
- Imperial War Museums
- Laurence Sterne Trust
- Leicester Museums and Galleries
- Jerwood Library of the Performing Arts
- Liyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru (National Library of Wales)
- LSE Library: The British Library of Political and Economic Science
- Museum of Domestic Design & Architecture
- National Archives
- National Brewery Heritage Trust
- National Galleries Scotland
- National Library of Scotland
- Natural History Museum
- National Science and Media Museum
- Perth Museums and Galleries
- Portable Antiquities Scheme
- Portico Library and Gallery
- Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
- Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove
- Science Museum Group
- Scottish Maritime Museum
- Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums
- University of Dundee Museum Collections
- University of Edinburgh Art Collection
- University of St Andrews
- University of York
- Victoria & Albert Museum
- Wellcome Collection
- York Museums Trust
3.3.4. Platforms for publication of open assets
Publication by primary platform. Many GLAMs publish open assets on more than one platform. The distribution of the primary platform for publication is as follows:
- 47 to Art UK (or 58.8%)
- 9 to Europeana (or 10.8%)
- 10 to Flickr & Flickr Commons (or 12.0%)
- 7 to Own website (while also contributing significant data to external platforms) (or 8.4%)
- 3 to Sketchfab (or 3.6%)
- 6 to Wikimedia Commons (or 7.2%)
Publication on Art UK. The total volume of all assets on Art UK is 282,036. Of these, 11,588 assets (or 4.1%) are published using open licences or public domain tools according to the distribution below:
- 10,207 – Public Domain or CC0
- 571 – CC BY
- 810 – CC BY-SA
5 GLAMs contribute 9,966 (or 98%) of these 10,207 public domain compliant assets:
- 5,093 – Wellcome Collection
- 1,778 – Yale Center for British Art (United States)
- 1,112 – Birmingham Museums Trust
- 1,060 – National Library of Wales
- 923 – York Museums Trust Notably, the second largest contributor of public domain compliant assets to Art UK is the Yale Center for British Art in New Haven, Connecticut. Once removed, the UK open assets total 9,810.
Volume published: 10,487,115 total assets. Some of these assets likely overlap across platforms. For example, the Natural History Museum publishes 5,671,155 CC BY assets and 85 Public Domain Mark assets on its own website and 1,460,023 CC BY assets on Europeana, bringing the total volume to 7,131,263. Given the potential for overlap, it is possible the assets on Europeana are duplicates of assets already published to the museum's website. Some GLAMS also publish assets on more than one platform and are therefore represented multiple times in the table below.
| Platform | Volume | % | GLAMs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art UK | 9,810 | 0.09% | 51 |
| Europeana | 2,727,171 | 26% | 13 |
| Flickr & Flickr Commons | 1,084,395 | 10% | 12 |
| Own website | 6,664,534 | 63% | 8 |
| Sketchfab | 165 | 0.0001% | 5 |
| Wikimedia Commons | 1,260 | 0.0001% | 8 |
* Platform filters limit how search returns can be sorted and/or viewed (e.g., by GLAM or rights statement). A discrepancy of 220 additional open assets on Art UK is unaccounted for in the itemized UK GLAM Sample data. This is likely due to data collection occurring over three weeks and new contributions being made by GLAMS during this time.
Volume published: breakdown of open licences and public domain tools used. GLAMs may take different approaches when publishing assets across one or more platforms, such as applying different statements (e.g., CC BY-SA on Europeana and Public Domain on Art UK[34]). This may be due to changes in a GLAM's policy over time or the types of standardised statements offered by a platform.
| Art UK | Europeana | Flickr Commons | Own website | Sketchfab | Wikimedia Commons | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NKCR | 1,084,395 | 20,000 | 143143 | |||
| Public domain | 10,207 | 119,547 | 67,588 | 431 | ||
| CC0 | 525 | 5,804 | 151 | |||
| CC BY | 571 | 2,603,100 | 6,571,142 | 4 | 416 | |
| CC BY-SA | 810 | 3,999 | 10 | 270 |
3.3.5. Technical protection measures
At least 35 GLAMS (or 17.9%) maintain technical protection measures that limit viewing, downloads or reuse of assets published on the website. Some implement more than one measure.
| Technical Protection Measures | # | Institution |
|---|---|---|
| Pay-to-view | 3 |
|
| Watermarks | 8 |
|
| Account required or personal information collected upon download | 4 |
|
| Download disabled, e.g., via the image display interface or inability to right-click and download | 20 |
|
| Low resolution | 4 |
|
3.3.6. Commercial licensing
Commercial licensing services are standard among most GLAMs in the sample. Data was collected for GLAMs who advertise images through a self-maintained licensing interface (e.g., Tate Images Picture Library) and/or external licensing platform (e.g., Bridgeman Images).
At least 48 GLAMs operate their own commercial licensing service and/or online picture library.
These include
|
|
Many post fee-models to the website or provide fee calculators for users, including for fair dealing uses permitted by UK copyright law.[35]
There is wide use of watermarks on images made available through these commercial image libraries and external licensing platforms. These instances are not included in the data on technical protection measures, as they obstruct images on platforms that operate separately from the website and/or primary digital collections interface.
At least 56 GLAMs from the UK GLAM sample licence at least 123,912 assets via Bridgeman Images. Google Art & Culture hosts another 92,337 from 40 UK GLAMs.
Such commercial relationship raise questions around how the value of these partnerships is assessed, whether copyright and/or exclusivity is even necessary for these relationships, and what success looks like.
3.4. Early stages of open GLAM
The data shows open GLAM is in early stages, although some countries and/or their national institutions take more consistent approaches.
3.4.1. What’s missing from the data
Without greater standardisation across practices and controlling for other types of data, it is difficult to produce deeper insight into national and international comparators for open access.
Some data, like the total number of GLAMs nationally, do not (yet) exist. Others are difficult to collect, like technical data on images (e.g., resolution, formats published and metadata scope) or collections level data (e.g., total collections, total digitised collections and the distribution of in-copyright versus public domain for underlying works). Some may produce speculative data or require their own in-depth study (e.g., on main differences in approaches across the GLAM sector, particularly by libraries and archives compared to galleries and museums).
In the UK, most instances of open GLAM appear to publish digital surrogates in low to very low resolution (e.g., at screen display resolution). Data on technical practice could produce meaningful assessments on the quality of assets published and the types of reuse enabled. However, few GLAMs document and/or publish this information or take consistent approaches for legacy reasons. Some limitations may be imposed by platform functionality. For example, Art UK limits images to 1200 pixels on the longest side.
The higher-level data collected by this study remains useful for comparing how GLAMs publish collections, interpret national law and enable reuse, and for identifying gaps.
For example, a glaring gap revealed in the map (see Section 3.2.) is where open access is occurring. Regions with aggregators have higher representation for many reasons, some of which are discussed immediately below. But the data shows GLAMs in the majority of the world (and their publics) are under-represented. This has implications for which countries and institutions are shaping open GLAM, as well as which collections by virtue of open access receive greater public and research attention and whose narratives and knowledge accompany them. To this point, language barriers also may contribute, both to reuse and to data collection, where standardised licences and tools are not used (e.g., Creative Commons) and instead policies must be read and understood in order to appreciate any reuse parameters.
3.4.2. The role of data aggregators and external platforms
Data aggregators and external platforms collect data from one or more sources, provide some value-added processing, and repackage the result in a reusable form. Examples include Europeana, Flickr Commons and Wikimedia Commons. These organisations have been crucial both for asset publication and for the exposure they bring to collections, as well as for data collection on open GLAM activity (i.e., this study).
Aggregators and platforms offer solutions to institutional barriers and challenges faced by GLAM staff and GLAMs themselves. Some participants mentioned that their organisation’s website lacked the technical capacity to publish or release high quality images due to bandwidth, storage infrastructure and systems within the institution. A website’s interface can be complicated to update and is often bespoke to a GLAM. Layers for rights statements must be maintained internally and built into the interface logic to display on the front-end. Participants noted the complexity of these systems (including the institution itself as a system) makes change slow. Some participants noted seeking funding for GLAM-specific projects to resolve or improve issues, but raised they also can introduce legacy issues, be designed for limited application or, where transferable, be difficult to scale and implement for the vast majority of GLAMs.
By contrast, aggregators and platforms can offer flexibility. Many also have advantages and perks. They can provide greater publication sustainability and human-facing support. Some offer funding and opportunities for collaboration, training and knowledge exchange. Images on these platforms receive an enormous volume of page views, which can increase exposure to the GLAM and its collection at higher rates than via the GLAM's own website and searchable digital collections.
The aggregators and platforms used can impact how open GLAM proceeds due to the systems and rights statements that shape participation. Some support the technical application of standardised statements in the interface and employ staff to review datasets or provide copyright support prior to publication. Use of open licences and public domain statements are a condition of entry for many. Wikimedia platforms require uploaders to apply CC BY-SA or more permissive statements to content. Wikimedia may condition digitisation funding upon publishing eligible assets to the public domain.
Douglas McCarthy (Europeana) offered insight explaining:
As seen in Europe, aggregators play an important role in publishing digital collections from small organisations. When combined with the fact that aggregators (generally) insist on rights labelling, this creates the conditions for relatively small collections being recorded and surprisingly prominent in the open GLAM survey. In the UK, Art UK serves this role.
The inverse of this is that national and large institutions tend to not join large scale aggregation projects, and therefore avoid having to adhere to aggregators' data models, including standardised rights statements for their collections.
Participants noted policies of aggregators and platforms have taken chunks out of the collection and required GLAMs to be more open, which they see as desirable because of the drive for engagement.
3.5. Open GLAM and the UK: a conclusion
Highlights from the data reveal:
The large majority of UK open GLAM instances are local and regional organisations.
Data aggregators and external platforms have had a huge impact on open GLAM representation in the UK. Among these, Art UK accounts for 58.8% of all UK open GLAM instances.
The UK's largest holders of cultural collections are not open. A few exceptions make significant contributions in volume.
7 UK GLAMS embrace open access as a matter of policy. 6 take a public domain compliant approach; 1 takes an open compliant approach. All appear to hold back high-resolution assets for commercialisation.
Some open GLAM activity can be directly attributed to funding obligations.
Open access is at risk of decline or stagnation. This finding extends to GLAMs currently engaging in open GLAM activity, as well as a wider trend emerging across the GLAM sector. Indeed, interviews and web-based research revealed clear evidence of decline or stagnation. Many participants noted that open access conversations are now harder with COVID-19. By relying on legacy work undertaken by previous staff, some staff have been able to hold ground against suggestions to withdraw assets and adopt a more commercially minded approach. Some participants mentioned that conversations on adopting more permissive licences have lost momentum. Even participants from open GLAMs noted having to re-defend the position on occasion due to revived commercialisation desires.
Web-based research revealed a few GLAMs are walking back on open access activity. To support this finding, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine was used to investigate engagement with Flickr Commons. As shown in the table on the following page, The National Archives, the National Science and Media Museum and Royal Museums Greenwich have removed assets from the Commons.
To illustrate, The National Archives hosted at least 213 images in the photostream in March 2010, the earliest date of capture on the Internet Archive.[36] Over the years, the total asset volume grew to at least 20,050 photos in March 2020.[37] The overwhelming majority have since been removed. Today, the account hosts 56 assets.[38]
| Earliest capture | Date | Highest capture | Date | Current assets | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| British Library | 1,019,998 | 12-2013 | 1,073,492 | 1,073,492 | |
| East Riding Archives | 368 | 12-2016 | 814 | 814 | |
| Faculty of Music Trìnity Laban | 32 | 11-2014 | 80 | 80 | |
| IWM Collections | 699 | 07-2014 | 714 | 714 | |
| LSE Library | 601 | 11-2009 | 3,095 | 3,095 | |
| Museum of Hartlepool | 203 | 08-2012 | 338 | 338 | |
| The National Archives | 213 | 03-2010 | 20,050 | 3-2020 | 56 |
| National Science and Media Museum | 76 | 09-2008 | 583 | 12-2016 | 449 |
| Royal Museums Greenwich | 134 | 09-2008 | 829 | 07-2014 | 0 |
| Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums | 505 | 01-2012 | 2,813 | 2,813 |
These and other examples provided by participants reveal assets are being removed to bolster exclusivity and commercialisation goals. GLAMS are aware they cannot revoke open licences and tools, like Creative Commons. Instead, removing access to the asset re-secures the exclusivity perceived to be necessary for commercialisation.
- ↑ These and other terms are discussed in Section 1.3.
- ↑ See, e.g., Section 1.4.2.
- ↑ Figures: https:/doi.org/10.5281/Zenodo.6242179
- ↑ Douglas McCarthy and Andrea Wallace, “Survey of GLAM open access policy and practice,” http://bit.ly/OpenGLAMsurvey, version on 7 October 2021
- ↑ Argentina (9); Aruba (1); Australia (23); Austria (8); Belgium (19); Brazil (9); Bulgaria (6); Cameroon (1); Canada (21); Chile (4); Croatia (2); Denmark (15); Estonia (7); Finland (16); France (62); Germany (157); Greece (9); Hungary (13); Iceland (1); India (1); Indonesia (5); Ireland (6); Israel (1); Italy (9); Japan (9); Latvia (1); Lithuania (7); Luxembourg (1); Mexico (6); Netherlands (49); New Zealand (22); Norway (40); Poland (73); Portugal (7); Qatar (1); Romania (7); Russia (9); Serbia (2); Slovakia (7); Slovenia (3); Spain (57); Sweden (80); Switzerland (34); Taiwan (1); Turkey (1); United Kingdom (80); United States (292); Uruguay (10); Venezuela (1). Non-national outliers include 4 organisations: European Space Agency (Europe); Khalili Collections, Biodiversity Heritage Library, and the UNESCO Archives (International).
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ See Section 2.3.1.
- ↑ See Appendix 3.
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ Ibid
- ↑ Further details are in Section 3.3.
- ↑ The total number is 144, but one policy was unclear and so the gallery was removed: Kupiškio etnografijos muziejus in Lithuania, http://etnografijosmuziejus.lt.
- ↑ Data on admissions fees has been converted into Euro. See Appendix 4. for the full list of GLAMs and entry fees.
- ↑ “The Gallery is a strong supporter of free entry—we don't think visitors should have to pay to see the Collection. Those who may never be able to visit us can enjoy and learn about the Collection through images published in books and magazines, and on television and the internet. The Gallery's image licensing department raises money by licensing reproductions, thus supporting both the free entry policy and the Gallery's main functions caring for its Collection and engaging people with its works.” https://www.npg.org.uk/business/images
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ See Section 1.4.1. for a discussion of data collection.
- ↑ These aggregators do not comply to the open GLAM data sampling for various reasons, in addition to Culture Grid no longer being in use. Volume and distribution of licences and tools used are not calculated for these platforms due to the variety of contributors and inability to filter data.
- ↑ See Figure 4 in Section 3.1.
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ Own website: 5,671,155 CC BY, 85 Public Domain; Europeana: 1,460,023 CC BY
- ↑ Own website: Unclear amount; Flickr Commons 1,070492 No known copyright restrictions; Europeana: 114,254 Public Domain
- ↑ Own website: 609,987 CC BY; Europeana: 428,204 CC BY
- ↑ Own website: Unclear amount; Art UK: 5,093 Public Domain or CC0
- ↑ Own website: 39, 503 Public Domain Mark; Art UK: 923 Public Domain Mark
- ↑ Own website: 28,000 Public Domain / CC0; Sketchfab: 10 CC BY-SA
- ↑ Figures: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242179
- ↑ National Library of Wales
- ↑ See Section 4.
- ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20100327164222/https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalarchives/
- ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20150705112950/https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalarchives
- ↑ https://www.flickr.com/people/nationalarchives/
- ↑
- https://www.flickr.com/people/britishlibrary/;
- https://www.flickr.com/photos/erarchivest;
- https://www.flickr.com/photos/ierwocdtem/;
- https://www.flickr.com/peaple/imperialwarmuseum/;
- https://www.flickr.com/photos/Iselibrary;
- https://www.flickr.com/photos/hartlepool museum;
- https://www.flickr.com/people/nationalarchives/;
- https://www.flickr.com/people/nationalmediamuseum/;
- https://www.flickr.com/pecple/nationalmaritimemuseum/;
- https://www.flickr.com/photos/twm_news