Wallace and Deazley (2016)

Source Details

Wallace and Deazley (2016)
Title:	Display At Your Own Risk
Author(s):	Wallace, A., Deazley, R.
Year:	2016
Citation:	Wallace, A. and Deazley, R. (2016) Display At Your Own Risk <https://displayatyourownrisk.org> (accessed 6 January 2021)
Link(s):	Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:	O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
Linked by:

About the Data
Data Description:	Data for the study consists of 100 digital surrogate images, including metadata, obtained from 52 cultural institutions. Metadata were cross-checked against institutional terms and conditions and copyright status of the digital surrogate to determine risk levels of reuse. TK GLAM
Data Type:	Primary and Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:	Web analytic (online user trace data)
Data Analysis Methods:	Qualitative Analysis Methods
Industry(ies):	Photographic activities Creative, arts and entertainment
Country(ies):	Multiple
Cross Country Study?:	Yes
Comparative Study?:	No
Literature review?:	No
Government or policy study?:	No
Time Period(s) of Collection:	2014-2016
Funder(s):

Abstract

“Display At Your Own Risk (DAYOR) is a research-led exhibition experiment featuring digital surrogates of public domain works of art produced by cultural heritage institutions of international repute. The project includes a Gallery Exhibition as well as an open source version of that exhibition intended for public use.”

Main Results of the Study

• Cultural institutions’ online policies are consistently ‘hidden’ from the user, are inconsistently labelled and difficult to access.
• Only 35 of the digital surrogate images contain information regarding what restrictions apply (or do not apply) to their use; 37 contained no data at all. Further, this metadata is often in conflict with the online policies for the cultural institution.
• The study identifies 4 levels of risk when reusing digital surrogate images: open/no risk, low risk, medium risk and high risk. Risk levels are associated with clear and broad policies permitting e.g. commercial use, and copyright status.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study does not make 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)
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:	100
Level of aggregation:	Images
Period of material under study:	2014-2016