Bridging the gap: from no Open Access to some/all Open Access
In the third post of her second series (post one & two), Anne Young ponders what can you do when your GLAM wants to go Open Access but doesn’t have the capabilities to fully automate the process and helps you bridge the gap from all rights reserved to full Open Access by going “Semi-Open Access.”
Now, you may say that that “Semi-Open Access” isn’t actually an actual thing, and that true Open Access requires zero restrictions on use of the GLAM content AND fully automated online access to said content. But, let’s acknowledge that many GLAMs struggle to get their content into an online collection to begin with, let alone implement the next steps to automate Open Access downloads. Hence, I present “Semi-Open Access” may be a viable mid-point.
Many GLAMs are able to process individual licensing requests and deliver collections content to users, but may not have the coordinated CMS, DAMS, and API components to make direct online downloads a reality. Thus, GLAMs can attain a variant of Open Access by offering collection content to users―with zero fees, contracts, or restrictions on use and reuse―by following similar processes to individually licensing content and thereby achieve “Semi-Open Access.”
In these cases, my suggestion to GLAMs is to outline a clear policy of NO reproduction fees on Public Domain content, require NO licensing contracts to use or reuse content IN ANY WAY, and provide third parties with the content individually via email or a file sharing service. GLAMs may also consider utilizing a platform, such as Wikimedia Commons, to facilitate sharing files of their collection content.
While this halfway step of “Semi-Open Access” is far from perfect, it is more attainable for many GLAM institutions. It is a stepping stone for when they can implement the coordinated CMS, DAMS, and API delivery for direct online downloads of content and thus achieve Full Open Access.
Further, this concept of “Semi-Open Access” can be a good way to “test the waters” should a GLAM face reservations or concerns from staff to perceived lack of control of uses of “their collection content” by instituting full Open Access.
(Insert eye roll here from those working in GLAM institutions that have gone Open Access and can attest there is nothing to fear from opening up Public Domain content to use and reuse!)
Hopefully, eventually, all GLAMs will have full Open Access from their websites, but in the interim, I encourage those of you that aren’t there yet to implement at least “Semi-Open Access” in the spirit of collegiality, supporting reuse, and―if nothing else―fewer contracts!
This recent article shows why we need Open Access to reduce unnecessary, and dare I even say exploitative, licensing fees to Public Domain GLAM content.
In my last post, I’ll give you a “cheatsheet” of GLAM licensing practices and Open Access policies.
Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute legal advice nor does it refer to any particular or specific situation. If you have any doubts about your specific situation, you should consult with a lawyer.
These posts were compiled out of the set of tweets that Anne did during her curation of the @openglam Twitter account. Remember you can do it too, just sign up here!
Anne Young is the Director of Legal Affairs and Intellectual Property at Newfields and editor of “Rights and Reproductions: The Handbook for Cultural Institutions, Second Edition”, for which she received the Visual Resources Association’s Nancy DeLaurier Award in 2017.
