Tanner (2004)

Source Details

Tanner (2004)
Title:	Reproduction charging models & rights policy for digital images in American art museums
Author(s):	Tanner, S.
Year:	2004
Citation:	Tanner, S. (2004) Reproduction charging models & rights policy for digital images in American art museums. Mellon Foundation Study. <http://msc.mellon.org/msc-files/Reproduction%20charging%20models%20and%20rights%20policy.pdf> (accessed 6 January 2022)
Link(s):	Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:	O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
Linked by:	Allen (2012), Kapsalis (2016), Kelly (2013), Wallace (2022)

About the Data
Data Description:	Data were obtained from (a) an online survey, with 100 respondents, and (b) structured interviews with 20 museum workers. Data from both points of collection were analysed to identify textual themes and patterns.
Data Type:	Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:	Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting) Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences) Structured Interview
Data Analysis Methods:	Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation) Correlation and Association Textual Content Analysis
Industry(ies):	Photographic activities Creative, arts and entertainment Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities
Country(ies):	United States
Cross Country Study?:	No
Comparative Study?:	No
Literature review?:	No
Government or policy study?:	No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
Funder(s):	Mellon Foundation

Abstract

“This study explores the cost and policy models adapted by US arts museums in arriving at pricing structures for delivering imaging and rights services. It examines the new market realities and opportunities cultural institutions face due to the transition to digital collections.One hundred US art museums were surveyed and in-depth interviews were carried out with 20 museums.”

Main Results of the Study

• Protecting copyright is viewed as a key responsibility of museums in their treatment of digitised images, and particularly for private museums for which this is a key internal motivating factor for using licensing services.
• All museums interviewed reported concerns about unauthorised uses of their digitised images, though only 10% pursued such unauthorised uses. The low uptake of enforcement measures is attributed to lacking of staff resource, and overall low knowledge about copyright licensing.
• More than 90% of museums reported that they would not pursue educational ‘fair uses’ of their images. However, museums are concerned about losing control of the way in which their images are depicted, and lack of attribution.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study does not make any explicit policy recommendations regarding copyright reform, instead offering suggested management structures and pricing policies for digital image licensing by museums.

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)
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)
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:	20
Level of aggregation:	Museums
Period of material under study:

Sample size:	100
Level of aggregation:	Individual
Period of material under study: