diglib: Fwd: [DIGLIB] licensing

[Carol Hixson <chixson@darkwing.uoregon.edu>]

It seems we are not the only ones being approached by
commercial vendors wanting to "partner" with us to digitize
some of our collections. Perhaps this merits a broader
discussion on philosophical grounds before we go much
farther down this road.

BPL seems to be the Boston Public Library.

Carol


> Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 20:39:41 -0400
> From: "Blake, Tom" <tblake@bpl.org>
> To: <diglib@infoserv.inist.fr>
>
> I have a rather complicated, predictable, and pressing issue that we 
> are dealing with at our library. As our digital collections are 
> growing and our budgets are shrinking, there is increasing pressure 
> to engage in licensing agreements with vendors who might realize the 
> apparent commercial potential of our digital assets. I once thought 
> this was a great idea, but as I've worked in the field longer and 
> thought about it harder, I have become more convinced that the 
> licensing of intellectual property (public domain, orphaned, and in 
> copyright) is at best, a contrivance and at worst, outright illegal. 
> As a public library with a stated mission of offering the broadest 
> and best possible access to its holdings how can we justify applying 
> "usage fees" to the dissemination of our images? I understand the 
> necessity of charging for the discovery, production, and proper 
> recording and preservation of a requested image, but beyond that -- 
> I don't see that we would have the right to license usages. I would 
> rather see our stuff get out there in any and all possible forms 
> (within the bounds of copyright legality) and thereby watch our 
> circulation, citations, attendance, and reference requests increase 
> -- the circulation business model that the publishing industry has 
> historically relied on for revenue generation.
>
> I'm thinking you all might have some fun and interesting comments.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Tom Blake