Stobo, Erickson, Bertoni and Guerrieri (2018)
|Stobo, Erickson, Bertoni and Guerrieri (2018)|
|Title:||Current Best Practices among Cultural Heritage Institutions when Dealing with Copyright Orphan Works and Analysis of Crowdsourcing Options|
|Author(s):||Stobo, V., Erickson, K., Bertoni, A., Guerrieri, F.|
|Citation:||Stobo, V., Erickson, K., Bertoni, A. And Guerrieri, F. (2018) Current Best Practices among Cultural Heritage Institutions when Dealing with Copyright Orphan Works and Analysis of Crowdsourcing Options. Report. diligentsearch.eu|
|Key Related Studies:|
|About the Data|
|Data Description:||Interviews were conducted with 15 cultural heritage institutions across the UK, Netherlands and Italy. The sample was a selection of the largest cultural heritage institutions In each country, institutions that did/did not use the EUIPO database, and other institutions that were representative of their sector. Interviews focussed on a multitude of areas, including copyright knowledge generally, rights clearances, dealing with orphan works, extended collective licensing schemes, staffing and specialised staff availability, etc.|
|Data Type:||Primary data|
|Secondary Data Sources:|
|Data Collection Methods:|
|Data Analysis Methods:|
|Cross Country Study?:||Yes|
|Government or policy study?:||Yes|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:|
“The purpose of this study is to establish the current state of best practices among Cultural Heritage Institutions (CHIs) when dealing with in-copyright orphan works in three countries: the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Italy. A baseline understanding of current practice provides a benchmark against which crowdsourcing (or any other proposal) to address the challenge posed by orphan works can be evaluated. The research team used a purposive sample to approach the ‘Big 3’ national libraries and film archives in each country, typically including the national library, the national archive and the national film archive. The researchers also aimed to include at least
• one institution from each jurisdiction that had used the EUIPO database, and one institution that digitized orphan works but opted not to use the database.
• 15 cultural institutions are included in the study. A semi-structured interview format was used to gather qualitative and quantitative data about the CHIs,
• their collections, their diligent search processes, the results of rights clearance for specific digitization projects, their thoughts on the potential of crowd-sourcing as a solution, and their views on the current legislative framework.”
Main Results of the Study
At country level, British cultural heritage institutions seem to have the highest tolerance for risk, with two national libraries digitising works without the assistance of UK or EU legal instruments. Conversely, Italy appears to have the lowest threshold of risk, apparently opting not to digitise, or in doing so only for preservation purposes (e.g. not publicly available).Cultural heritage institutions err towards more conservative approaches to digitisation, noting particularly that negative public perceptions of copyright infringement is an important factor in determining whether to pursue this. This is compounded by the lack of clarity over the requirements for a “diligent search”, and concern that by “crowdsourcing” this requirement would lead to a poor or incorrect finding (in turn compromising the reputation of the institution). Combined with low levels of staff, and particularly so for staff that specialise in copyright issues, the result is a very low uptake of the EUIPO database.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Whilst repetitional concerns remain important for cultural heritage institutions, there are also economical barriers to dealing with orphan works, including high transaction and administrative costs. The authors submit that crowdsourcing of the diligent search requirement may be the most effective method of encouraging participation with the EUIPO, though note that this also raises issues (e.g. quality assurance burden on the cultural heritage institution).
Coverage of Study