[OpenGLAM] Content Trafficking v.3

Mon Sep 16 18:11:57 UTC 2013

The institutions in the US who have made contributions to the Commons (as a
whole, not just Wikimedia, I'm saying in concept) and released data under
open licensing (or freeing paywalled PD content) don't expect to make money
off of it. People do this for the ethical concept, I think.

I can only make assumptions - perhaps they hope they'll get donations,
perhaps they'll hope they will receive more funding for
digitization...another idea, of those GLAMs that don't release the largest
resolution possible (like Archives of American Art), perhaps they hope that
researchers will still request print ready or higher resolution versions.
Which costs the nominal fee of purchasing the rights.

I don't have a more specific answer.

I would assume it's the same every where else.

-Sarah

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:08 AM, rupert THURNER
<rupert.thurner at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>>

-- 
-- 
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130916/91a64d01/attachment-0001.html>