[OpenGLAM] Content Trafficking v.3

[rupert THURNER]

Sarah, how do GLAMS in north america measure the financial impact of
uploading images to commons? How much income do they expect, coming from
what channels?

Rupert
Am 16.09.2013 18:42 schrieb "Sarah Stierch" <sarah.stierch at gmail.com>:

> *We need examples of where funding has came to an institution because of
> OpenGLAM work.*
> *
> *
> *And to challenge the comment about strategic plans, that's not so much
> the case anymore - GLAMs are sharing their OpenGLAM work.
> *
>
> And most of us never receive or read annual plans for institutions,
> because we're not that invested in it, unless we're the one's writing it or
> reading it. As a non-major donor for most institutions, the only annual
> report I generally read now that I no longer am getting my master's in
> business administration (where you read these things until your head
> explodes) is the organization I work for (Wikimedia Foundation) because we
> all get a copy.
>
> I just took a look at some of the North American organizations I've been
> involved in, and that have also had OpenGLAM oriented activities I wasn't
> directly involved in.
>
> 1) *Archives of American Art. *No mention of Wikipedia or OpenGLAM work,
> despite releasing 200+ previously paywalled public domain images into the
> Commons and writing tons of content and a report about my residency. No
> surprise though, the temporary director was quite vocal about disliking
> Wikipedia and the entire OpenGLAM "thing."  (Despite the director who I
> came in under loving the idea) And they tend to lean towards impressing
> donors like art institutions love to do.[1]
>
> 2)* Walters Art Museum*, who released over 20,000 images to the Commons
> mentions it on page 9 under the Technology header. They have an entire
> paragraph devoted to the project, talking about Creative Commons, too.
> WIN!! [2]
>
> 3) I could not find the *Smithsonian Institution Archives* annual report.
> I was Wikipedian in Residence there.  (and it got a lot of press, so I'm
> surprised it wasn't mentioned, it's not every day that archives ends up in
> Gawker.. ;) )
>
> 4) The *Children's Museum of Indianapolis*, the first museum to hire full
> time a Wikipedian in Residence, mentions it on page 9 of their strategic
> plan. Talks Jimmy Wales visiting, images released to Commons, and Lori's
> work with the Wikimedia Foundation. WIN. [3]
>
> 5) *National Archives and Records Administration* mentions it, on page
> iv, but this is a brief report. Their complete performance report is so
> gigantic and my internet connection stinks, so I'm too lazy to wait for it
> to load. It could be mentioned in there, I figure it would be since they
> invested a decent chunk of money for the work.[4][5]
>
> 6) *OCLC* has a fabulous spread about Wikipedia and GLAM-Wiki
> partnerships on their annual report. Page 32-33.[6]
>
> [1] http://www.aaa.si.edu/files/publications/2011annualreport.pdf
> [2]
> http://thewalters.org/pdf/annual-report/walters-art-museum-annual-report-2012.pdf
> [3] http://www.childrensmuseum.org/annualreport/2011/index.html
> [4]
> http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-accountability/2011/par-summary.pdf
>
> [5]
> http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-accountability/2011/par-complete.pdf
> [6]
> http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/publications/AnnualReports/2012/2012.pdf
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Laurel L. Russwurm <laurel.l at russwurm.org
> > wrote:
>
>> Of course making content freely available digitally would be beneficial
>> to GLAM institutions, whether they realize it or not.  Doing so is a
>> combination of advvertising, outreach and education.  Most people don't
>> care about art/artifacts  they have never heard about/seen.  When we have
>> seen photos in books or online, we begin to learn about/start to appreciate
>> them.  As a child I began to appreciate art in large part due to a board
>> game called "Masterpiece" ~ which was my inroduction to van Gogh.  Although
>> his work is freely available all over the place, including high quality
>> digital scans online, I would most certainly visit any of his work in real
>> life at any GLAM I was able to get to.  But I would never consider donating
>> to a GLAM that hoarded their public domain holdings by refusing to make
>> them digitally available.  Culture needs to be shared.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13-09-16 05:13 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/11/2013 05:54 PM, Estermann Beat wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I find revolting, however, are GLAMs withholding public domain
>>>> works or attaching CC-non commercial licenses to two-dimensional scans
>>>> without actually recouping a significant part of the production costs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Your mistake is that you believe that making
>>> content freely available would be beneficial to
>>> GLAM institutions. If that were the case, then
>>> they would consider it harmful to withhold
>>> content. But you should read their annual
>>> reports: Where do they brag about making
>>> content freely available? They brag about
>>> getting large donations and about having
>>> many physical visitors. But making more
>>> material freely available is usually not on
>>> the plus side of their accounting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> open-glam mailing list
>> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**listinfo/open-glam<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam>
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**options/open-glam<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *Sarah Stierch*
> *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
> *www.sarahstierch.com*
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130916/f635825f/attachment-0001.html>