Kelly (2019)

From Copyright EVIDENCE

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Kelly (2019)
Title: Digital Cultural Heritage and Wikimedia Commons Licenses: Copyright or Copywrong?
Author(s): Kelly, E.J.
Year: 2019
Citation: Kelly, E.J. (2019) Digital Cultural Heritage and Wikimedia Commons Licenses: Copyright or Copywrong? Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(3)
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Initially, the author generated a random list of archives, including museums, historical associations and university archives, from the archive discovery tool Archive, totalling 66 institutions. From this, the author then searched the Wikimedia Commons for images from those institution’s collections, totalling 308 (no more than 20 from each institution). Thereafter, the licensing information given on the Wikimedia Commons was evaluated for trustworthiness, including comparisons with the rights information included in the institutions own site.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
Funder(s):

Abstract

“Cultural heritage institutions can contribute to public knowledge and increase awareness of their collections by uploading digital objects to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. However, prior research has established the difficulty of and/or hesitation by many cultural heritage institutions in clearly and accurately labeling the copyright status of their born-digital and digitized collections. With this knowledge, how likely is it that digital cultural heritage will be findable and usable on Wikimedia Commons? This study seeks to determine how accurate rights statements for cultural heritage objects on Wikimedia Commons are, and whether inaccuracies can be linked to problematic rights statements in cultural heritage digital libraries or whether the inaccuracies stem from Wikimedia Commons. By evaluating the rights statements, licenses, and sources for 308 Wikimedia Commons objects from 57 cultural heritage organizations and comparing that information to corresponding licenses from digital libraries, we can begin to develop best practices and educational needs for digital librarians, archives, museum curators, and Wikipedians alike to improve the user experience for those using digital cultural heritage on Wikimedia projects.”

Main Results of the Study

Of the cultural heritage images analysed, 77% were labelled as being in the public domain, 8% as author public domain, 14% as under a Creative Commons licence (mostly Share Alike licences) and 1% as being copyrighted and being reproduced with permission from the author.

91% of the licences accurately depicted the copyright status of each object, with only 3% being incorrect and 6% indeterminate. Where inaccuracies were noted, this was usually due to the fault of the cultural heritage institution where the image originated, rather than the Wikimedia Community.

Overall, the study finds that the rights statements in the Wikimedia Commons are trustworthy and reliable, which is attributed to the constant and collaborative peer review process.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study does not offer any explicit policy recommendations.



Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Green-tick.png
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Green-tick.png
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size: 66
Level of aggregation: Cultural heritage institutions
Period of material under study: Unknown


Sample size: 308
Level of aggregation: Cultural heritage objects
Period of material under study: Unknown