New Models for Distributing Digital Content
A paper for the Data Processing Clinic, University of Illinois
March 25, 1996.
J. Trant, Getty Art History Information Program
jtrant@io.org
http://www.io.org/~jtrant
Contents
I. Background: Intellectual Property Rights
II. MESL a response
III. Models for IP Administration
IV. Why test with museums and universities?
V. Progress to Date
VI. Further Information
- legal framework slow to respond to technology
- major barrier to creation of image database systems
- management systems require balance between concerns of rights holders and rights users
- Rights may exist in...
- original work of art
- photographic reproduction
- digital image
- manipulated digital image
- Specific rights may be associated with each form/version
- Rights in different media are often disassociated
- Having rights in one media does not mean you have rights in another
- based on single item negotiations
- unable to handle volume generated by digital use
- true costs for locating and using images unreasonably high
- ease of digital copying removes gatekeeper role
- no longer control access to quality
- no longer able to enforce compliance
- system expensive to maintain
- difficult to locate suitable images
- cost of using individual images high
- terms and conditions vary
- museums unable to supply high volume at reasonable cost
- high overhead throughout system
- top 10 syndrome
- content defined based on ease of access
- "ersatz reproductions" easier to use than "real thing"
- museum documentation sacrificed
- establish the terms and conditions for the educational use of museum images and associated information
- facilitate distribution of high quality information
- enable collaboration between rights holders and rights users
- respect of original object
- integrity of information
- protection and security
- acknowledgement
- remuneration
- easy access to large body of material
- central source to locate content
- common terms and conditions
- reasonable fee structure
- effective and efficient administration
- Pay per use/bit
- Site license
- focus on individual image
- high monitoring requirements
- per-use charge may inhibit access
- discourages exploration of resource
- costs unpredictable; budgeting difficult
- shifts cost to individual
- focus on collections of images
- reasonable monitoring requirements
- information free at point of use
- encourages exploration, serendipitous use
- predictable costs; no hidden charges
- one-stop shopping for image users
- standard terms and conditions
- standard data delivery format
- efficient administration
- enables communication between rights holders and rights users
- museums have images and information
- universities have delivery systems
- both have educational mandate
- share common culture and interests
- teaching and research in the Humanities
- art history, history, anthropology, cultural and religious studies
- multimedia development
- distance learning, visual literacy, independent study, life-long learning
- information and computer science
- image database research, access, description, search and retrieval, image processing
- selection based upon competative call for participation
- interdisciplinary project teams on each campus
- central coordination at AHIP
- management committee to advise
- January 1995 - June 1997
- Fowler Museum of Cultural History at UCLA
- The George Eastman House, Rochester, NY
- The Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, MA
- The Library of Congress, Washington, DC
- The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, TX
- The National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC
- The National Museum of American Art, Washington, DC
- American University, Washington, DC
- Columbia University, New York, NY
- Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
- University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL
- University of Maryland, College Park, MD
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint, MI
- University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
- Cooperative Agreement signed
- image selection
- image distribution
- evaluation
- terms and conditions of experiment
- educational use on campus network
- includes research, teaching, student projects
- no redistribution
- no commercial use
- will form basis for model site license
- over 4000 images distributed in spring 95
- additional set to be distributed spring 96
- challenge to create coherent data sets
- support teaching
- work with existing/planned digitization
- negotiation to meet curricular needs
- University of Michigan as "distribution central"
- each campus mounted own set of images
- delivery decisions based on local infrastructures
- Data Dictionary developed
- object description as structured text
- unstructured text as linked documents
- conservation reports
- exhibition history
- bibliography
- Challenge to create consistency in merged data set
- quality as high as museums comfortable releasing
- 758 x 512 through 1536 x 1024
- 24 bit colour
- file formats
- JFIF with JPEG
- PhotoCD
- TIFF
- sites determined image delivery formats
- separate content from delivery systems
- learn about issues by studying choices
- compare delivery system designs with common data set
- acknowledge heterogeneous nature of data creation and delivery infrastructure
- critical to success of project
- required of participants
- broad range of activities
- UMD, joint studio/art history project
- UVA, Religious Studies
- UMI, SILS
- statistics about use
- profiles of distribution systems
- assessment of interface choices
- examination of search capabilities
- costs and benefits of new technology
- costs of rights administration
- model self-sustaining system
- enable the educational use of museum digital assets
- propose a famework for the collective administration of museum intellectual property rights
- suggest a scalable system for implementation