# A Culture of Copyright/Public facing policies

​4. Public facing policies & GLAMs interpreting UK law
   “Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?
   Simply creating a copy of an image won’t result in a new copyright in the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases.
   However, according to established case law, the courts have said that copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criterion, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.”
UK Intellectual Property Office, 2015 Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet
Note: This section discusses data on 63 GLAMs selected from the UK GLAM Sample.
Websites were reviewed to locate any terms of use, ethical, copyright and/or open access policy applying to reuse of digital surrogates of public domain works. An assortment of policies with clear statements on rights and reuse are included in the final sample. GLAMs in affiliated groups are represented by the umbrella policy for the organisation (e.g., National Museums Liverpool, Birmingham Museums Trust, Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums). This eliminated redundancy in policy inclusions and reduced the overall number in the final sample. The policies are included in full in Appendix 2. UK GLAM Policies on copyright and open access.
This portion of the research asked: How are UK GLAMs interpreting laws and shaping public access to digital media generated around public domain works? The discussion below quotes heavily from public facing policies.
4.1. Introducing inconsistency and inflexibility
Public facing policies can provide insight into internal operations, such as how an organisation views and values its digital collections and interprets various laws and obligations to the public.
Law, itself, is deeply situated in a culture of ‘it depends’. Lawyers are trained to anticipate risk and insulate clients from liability, rather than to advocate for an approach seen by a client (and entire sector) as carrying risk and adverse to interests. Legal advice is perceived to be expensive and therefore inaccessible to many GLAMs. As a result, GLAMs often rely on one another for interpreting and applying law. Ultimately, these and other factors shape the policies that reveal both consistencies and inconsistencies across UK GLAM practices and inflexibilities around risk, rights management and collections reuse.
​4.2. Policies, practices and interpretations of law
The analysis below relies on website policies where GLAMs publish digital media of public domain collections. To aid the reader, footnotes include information on the policy name, the GLAM and its majority approach taken to publishing collections.
4.2.1. Interpretations of copyright law
Many GLAMs make broad statements that all online content is protected by UK law. The British Museum extends this interpretation to international law: “All the content on our website is protected by internationally recognised laws of copyright and intellectual property. The British Museum can decide under what terms to release the content for which we own the copyright.” Leeds Museums & Galleries also claims “[o]ur copyright and other intellectual property rights are protected by UK laws and by international treaties”, as does the Tank Museum: “All text, images and multi media files on this website are protected by internationally recognised laws of copyright and intellectual property.” These and other GLAM references to national and international IP law make no mention of corresponding laws that shape or define the public domain.
A few expressly address rights arising in reproductions. The Government Art Collection reminds users “if the artist of the work is alive, or has been dead for less than seventy years, there will normally be a separate copyright in the work itself in addition to the copyright in the photographic reproduction”. This is not technically accurate. A photographic reproduction is considered a copy of the underlying in-copyright work. The default rightsholder is thus the same rightsholder of the underlying work, unless that right was transferred or assigned by contract (e.g., to the GLAM during acquisition). The National Portrait Gallery’s framing is better: “An important thing to remember is that ownership of copyright can be completely distinct and separate from ownership of a physical object. For example, the Gallery owns a number of paintings and photographs (objects) which it cannot copy without permission, as it does not own the copyright. Often this rests with the artist or photographer, or their estate.” There is no mention of what happens when the copyright expires. The Gallery links to the UK IPO’s website when describing the range of rights recognised in IP law, but it does not follow the IPO’s legal interpretation that no new rights arise in photographic reproductions of public domain works. In the Copyright and reuse policy, the following statement is made: “The National Portrait Gallery champions clear and balanced information about copyright and licensing.”
The Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove is the only GLAM (of all 195, but likely in all of the UK) to rely on the 2015 UK IPO guidance in its interpretation of copyright law. The Museum publishes an extensive policy on intellectual property rights and reproductions, which “recognises that [the organisation] cannot claim copyright in faithful 2D reproductions of 2D objects which are no longer protected by copyright”.
​4.2.2. Acknowledgement of the public domain
Some GLAMs expressly mention the public domain or imply that copyright expires.
GLAMs that publish open content. The British Library makes a statement on the public domain and flags materials may be marked as such online. LSE Library includes a general discussion on the rights statements and licences used, referencing the public domain mark and no known copyright and what collections or items these statements apply to (e.g., "very old works").
The National Library of Wales does not expressly mention the public domain, but states that "The Library does not claim ownership of copyright in digital reproductions. Access to reproductions shall be subject to the same rights as would apply to the work in its original format." This information is separate from the Copyright policy, which includes general information on the rights statements used. Immediately following reference to the 2015 UK IPO guidance, the Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove states that "[i]t considers these surrogates to be in the public domain". The Museum also commits to publishing "catalogue data about its collections under open licences or as public domain assets" where possible.
York Museums Trust has an extensive frequently asked questions type of policy, with user-centred prompts like "What can I do with YMT's online collections images?" and responses like "Images of works on which copyright has expired are marked Public Domain. We have no particular legal rights over these images, so they can be used for any purpose. Old artworks are a good example of public domain works." Screenshots accompany the answers, along with text requesting (rather than requiring) attribution: "All we ask is that York Museums Trust is credited in the following way whenever a Public Domain image in our collection is used. Image courtesy of York Museums Trust :: http:/yorkmuseumstrust.org.uk :: Public Domain."
GLAMS that reserve all rights or use closed licences. Many GLAMS reference the expiration of copyright in tandem with new copyright claims, highlighting that the user should be on notice of any underlying rights that must be considered in addition to their own.
Sir John Soane's Museum claims "intellectual property rights in all content comprising or contained within this website" and reminds users "if a work of art, sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship is still in the artist's copyright (where for example the artist is still alive or has died within the last 70 years) you will need to obtain the additional permission of the artist or his or her estate or successor in title in order to reproduce the work". The Fitzwilliam Museum publishes low-resolution images under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence and notes this excludes "any images of works that are still in copyright (which includes anything where the creator is still alive of that falls within the period of date of death plus 70 years) or which are explicitly stated to be governed by a different licence". Guernsey Museums & Galleries claims copyright in "images, design and text in the website" and notes "the picture library can only supply images of works that remain in copyright (where the artist ​or photographer is alive, or where they died less than 70 years ago) if prior written permission has been sought from the copyright holder" and requires the user to provide "a copy of this permission when submitting [the] reproduction request".
In a provision specific to use for educational purposes, Museums Sheffield notes "[u]nfortunately we are unable to provide images that are currently in copyright (where the artist is still alive or has died in the last 70 years}". This information is not repeated in terms covering other reuse purposes. On a webpage called "An introduction to copyright", the National Portrait Gallery explains "[c]opyright usually lasts for the creator's lifetime, plus the end of 70 years after their death (i.e. copyright always expires on 31 December in a given year)". The Gallery expressly addresses the public domain, albeit incorrectly, in another webpage specific to its Academic Licence: "Non-commercial research is research whose objective is to put new ideas into the public domain for public benefit and at no cost to the end user. It will therefore normally be financed from public or charitable funds" (italics added).
These policies reference the term of copyright for the underlying work without explaining what it means for those rights to expire.
4.2.3. Disclosure of rights in underlying work
Few GLAMs distinguish between the object and the image, both in general policies and when viewing an item. In some instances, the design of the display interface introduces uncertainty around a work's rights status.
Aberdeen Archives, Art Gallery and Museums includes a clear copyright statement in the Terms and Conditions and notice in the website footer. Users encounter a different rights statement when viewing an item: "Copyright: Out of copyright." This statement may refer to the underlying work, yet it contradicts other statements made by the organisation. Users who do not encounter the Terms and Conditions could reasonably interpret the out of copyright statement near the image as authorising its unfettered reuse.
The Heritage Collections UK Parliament approach is clearer. The Copyright policy states "all of the images on this website are subject to copyright". Users are provided with two rights statements when viewing an item: "Image copyright: UK Parliament" and "Object copyright: Out of copyright." However, no examples read "Out of copyright" for both the "Image copyright" and "Object copyright" statements.
These item level assessments suggest the data infrastructure and websites' technical interface may be in place for accommodating a policy change.
4.2.4. Over restrictive personal use and conflicts with fair dealing
The UK copyright act permits certain acts around in-copyright works under the concept of 'fair dealing'. These include fair dealing for the purposes of: criticism or review; quotation; reporting current events; parody, caricature or pastiche; and illustration for instruction. Courts consider a number of factors when determining whether a dealing (or use) is fair. Accordingly, even if the copyright were valid, users are legally entitled to "deal" with those works in certain contexts, and those rights cannot be overridden by contractual terms stating otherwise.
Some GLAM policies make express or implied references to copyright exceptions or fair dealing. Examples include: Fleming Collection; Imperial War Museums; Museum of London; National Galleries Scotland; Parliamentary Archives; Royal Albert Museum; Royal Museums Greenwich; Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton & Hove; Victoria & Albert Museum; Art UK; and Guernsey Museums & Galleries (fair use).
Others have overbroad prohibitions that conflict with fair dealing, particularly around personal use:
Atkinson Art Gallery permits users to "temporarily download one copy of the materials (information or software) on The Atkinson's web site for personal, non-commercial transitory viewing only".
East Riding Archives informs users that "[b]y viewing and or purchasing an image from this collection, you are agreeing to comply with copyright licensing regulations. These state your use of the image is for personal use only. The images may not be reproduced, published or distributed in any format including books, magazines, promotional, advertising or any other material in print or media including the Internet, broadcast and private or public exhibition without the express permission of the East Riding Council Heritage Service."
​Kirklees Image Archive contains language that mirrors the policy above (in italics): "By viewing a digital image from this collection, you are agreeing to comply with licensing obligations. These state that your use of the image is for personal use only, and that you will not copy, publish or distribute the image in any way."
Leeds Museums & Galleries permits downloads "provided [the content] is not re-used or re-published in any way".
Manchester Art Gallery states "[a]l material is provided for browsing and viewing purposes only. No copies of the digital images or text may be made except for personal use", and goes on to describe personal use as "non-commercial, domestic use by an individual involving the making of only single copies of each digital image".
National Museums Liverpool permits users to "save, copy and print our images from our website, provided they are solely for your own personal use".
National Museums Northern Ireland prohibits content from being "copied, altered in any way or transmitted to others (unless explicitly stated otherwise) without authorisation".
National Portrait Gallery informs users the "website is here for [their] enjoyment" and permits users to "access, download and/or print contents for non-commercial research and private study purposes". Those who "wish to use this material in any other way, must seek permission".
Tank Museum permits users to "access, download and print pages from the Materials on a temporary basis for the sole purpose of viewing them for non-commercial personal or educational purposes".
Ronan Deazley and Robert Sullivan have argued that terms which users to pay a licence fee for uses deemed to be fair dealing and permitted by copyright law could violate the Fraud Act 2006, specifically the section 2 offence of fraud by false representation.
In a bespoke non-commercial licence, the Imperial War Museum defines 'use' around negative restrictions, rather than permissions: "Use' as a verb, means doing any act which is restricted by copyright or database right, whether in the original medium or in any other medium, and includes for the purpose of this licence use without limitation distributing or copying in accordance with the terms of this licence." The licence does not acknowledge the acts or 'use' legally permitted by copyright law.
Many terms extend to activity on personal blogs and social media, content captured by screenshots and/or sent by text and email, as well as data storage on personal devices and local drives. Realistically, GLAMs lack the sufficient resources and ability to enforce them, even if they were supported by law.
​4.2.5. Access for educational purposes
Some GLAMs permit reuse beyond what fair dealing would allow, particularly for educational purposes.
The Ashmolean Museum states that the "Collections Online has primarily been created for use by the education community" and permits use for "non-commercial educational purposes, including school higher education and further education students and employees for uses connected with education". The Bodleian Libraries publishes content CC BY-NC 4.0. In addition, "to encourage wide engagement and reuse of collections for the purposes of private study, research, teaching, and educational instruction", the Library provides a list of additional permitted uses, such as: "in academic textbooks/e-books and academic books/e-books with print runs up to and including 3,000 copies" and "in journals/e-journals and academic newsletters". This is restricted to inside use only.
Other GLAMs define educational uses by print runs and publications. The Victoria & Albert Museum reserves all rights on the website, but permits use of content: (1) for print based academic publications, "one-time use in publications with print-runs up to and including 4,000 copies, for one edition only"; (2) for academic e-publications, online journals, non-commercial websites and blogs, use "up to 5 years from the first day of publication"; and (3) for charities and non-profit organisations, "one-time use in print or electronic formats up to 4,000 print copies or 5 years online". This latter distinction raises questions around the fairness provisions on standard use charges imposed by the PSI Regulation. Additional conditions apply: images cannot exceed A5 when printed or 768 pixels along the longest side online, they can be used only inside publications and the amount of V&A Content used must not exceed 25% of the total content used.
The National Portrait Gallery has extensive and varying policies for reuse of content under a (1) Professional Licence, (2) Academic Licence and (3) CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence. Users must apply for the professional and academic licences or submit an email address to activate the download of CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 "low resolution images" (800 pixels wide at 72 dpi). The Academic Licence for "high resolution images" (1500 pixels wide at 72 dpi) requires the user to register personal details and submit a request online for any "private, non-commercial research, use in a classroom, use in a dissertation or for scholarly and non-commercial publications" so long as the "combined print/electronic run is below 2,000 copies for books, or 4,000 copies for journals (and images are used inside (not on the cover)[...])". Additional conditions are contained in the webpage specific to "The National Portrait Gallery Academic Licence". Information and obligations relevant to the Academic Licence alone are spread across (at least) three different pages.
Other GLAMs condition educational use to be more restrictive than fair dealing would allow. To reproduce an image for research or educational use, Museums Sheffield requires the user to obtain permission via an email containing "as much detail as possible about your intended use of the image" but notes "[u]nfortunately we are unable to provide images that are currently in copyright ​(where the artist is still alive or has died in the last 70 years)”. Accordingly, the Museum considers requests for educational use of only digital surrogates of public domain works in the collection (which also imposes Museum oversight over the fair dealing exception).
These framings of fair dealing and educational use can change according to resolution, media type and whether the documents fall within the public task, as discussed further below.
4.2.6. Commercial versus non-commercial activities
Activities framed as commercial versus non-commercial demonstrate how GLAMs view permissible activities around reproduction media. Some GLAMs prohibit all commercial reuse in policies.
Many GLAMs publish materials via Creative Commons Non-Commercial licences and use language from the NC 4.0 version in the policy to clarify that non-commercial “means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation”. This includes: Fleming Collection; Glasgow Museums; LSE Library; Museum of Classical Archaeology; Science Museum Group; Tate; and Art UK. The Bodleian Libraries goes on to explain: “This restriction is in place in part because the Bodleian Libraries seek to protect the commercial partnerships and activities based on images of our collections that provide an income stream that supports the work of the Bodleian, including our digitization efforts.”
A handful of national museums use the CC language and list bespoke examples of commercial and non-commercial activities. Commercial use examples from the British Museum (CC BY-NC-ND-SA 4.0) include: “anything that is in itself charged for”, “freely distributed leaflets that promote goods or services” and “display in public places offering or promoting a product or service”. While the Victoria & Albert Museum reserves all rights (i.e., does not use CC licences), it does use the NC language to define non-commercial purposes (overlap in italics): “The V&A considers noncommercial use to be any use that is not intended for or directed towards commercial advantage of monetary compensation.” Note that “primarily” does not modify “intended” in this version, which expands the scope of activities that might qualify as commercial use. Finally, the National Portrait Gallery (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) defines commercial use via terms related to print runs and publications, as previously discussed. Similar to the Bodleian Libraries, the Gallery expressly highlights image licensing as an important income stream: “Diligent conduct in respect of [IP] rights, as well as the protection, active use and careful development of the revenue-generating potential of the Gallery’s IPR, are essential to the Gallery’s functioning, good reputation, authority, sustainability and the achievement of its core objectives.” A few paragraphs later, it continues: “The Gallery’s image licensing department raises money by licensing reproductions, thus supporting both the free entry policy and the Gallery’s main functions caring for its Collection and engaging people with its works.”
Some GLAMs create bespoke non-commercial licences which use the NC language. The Royal Armouries uses its own ‘Non-Commercial Licence (and Crown Copyright Licence)’ which defines ​commercial use as (overlap in italics): "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation or gain". The Imperial War Museum uses its own 'IWM Non-Commercial Licence' with the following definitions (overlap in italics): "'Commercial' means intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation", and "'Non-Commercial' means not intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." Use of "private" in these instances likely stems from reliance on text from the NC 3.0 version.
The Fleming Collection and National Galleries of Scotland cite charity law in provisions stating they treat other charities (and their trading arms) as commercial organisations and prohibit their use of website materials on that basis.
4.2.7. Unenforceable terms
Certain policy terms are unenforceable, such as terms overriding acts permitted by copyright law. Others raising questions around enforceability may require litigation to resolve.
Bradford Museums & Galleries states that "[b]y agreeing to these terms and conditions you are also confirming that you are over the age of 13 and thus legally able to give permission for your data to be held". Users allegedly agree to terms by viewing the website, similar to Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums's policy: "By choosing to view the collections you have accepted these conditions." East Riding Archives states by "viewing and or purchasing an image from this collection, you are agreeing to comply with copyright licensing regulations". Upon "terminating your viewing", Atkinson Art Gallery requires users to "destroy any downloaded materials in [their] possession whether in electronic or printed format". These terms are often referred to as "browse wrap terms", as they bind the user by virtue of simply viewing the website. Such terms raise concerns around lawfulness, consent and enforcement.
At least two GLAMs attempt to control use of materials on external platforms through policies on their websites. In a section called 'Copyright of Flickr Images', East Riding Archives explains images on Flickr Commons are marked as "'no known copyright restrictions', indicating that we are unaware of any current copyright restrictions on these images, either because copyright has expired, no evidence has been found that copyright restrictions apply, or we own the copyright and have chosen not to exercise that control". The Archives then attempts to condition their use with: "The images that we upload to our Flickr photostream are available for non-commercial research, private study, or educational purposes." The National Archives includes a similar statement for collections uploaded to both Flickr Commons and Wikimedia Commons and limiting reuse "for the purposes of research, private study or education (non-commercial use) only". On Wikimedia Commons, all 381 ​images are marked ‘Public Domain’ and were digitised through a Wikimedia UK grant. On Flickr Commons, images are labelled ‘no known copyright restrictions’. These UK GLAMs and others on Flickr have deleted assets previously uploaded to the Commons, as discussed in Section 3.5.
The Parliamentary Archives has an indemnification clause: “When you use a copy or the item in a way that infringes copyright, you agree to indemnify the Parliamentary Archives in respect of any damages or costs incurred by it in respect of that infringement.” Under this policy, indemnification could potentially include costs incurred when enforcing the (alleged) copyright against the infringing user, such as staffing time and overheads.
Some terms are practically impossible to enforce, such as this one on Tate’s website: “All use of Tate images under Creative Commons is checked by Tate. Please email us about how you plan to use the work at [email address]. Thank you.” Whether this is meant to be a condition of use, or a courtesy request, is unclear. However, Creative Commons licences are expressly designed to permit reuse without permission or communication between the rightsholder and user. The Horniman Museum forbids users to “frame or link to the website or any part of it without our express permission”. Both terms convey a desire for communication with users and a general interest in knowing how content may be used, but they are presented under the umbrella of legal enforcement.
4.2.8. Moral rights and attribution
Moral rights are a red herring in the UK when dealing with public domain works: because moral rights expire alongside the copyright, they have ceased to exist. However, the attraction to claiming copyright in digital surrogates is that the right of attribution to the institution can be secured through the new copyright.
Moral rights accompany copyright protection and provide authors with the right to be named (or not) as the author of a work when it is copied or communicated (i.e., the right of attribution, and to object to false attribution) and to control any treatment that may be derogatory or affect the author’s reputation (i.e., the right of integrity). In the UK, the right of attribution does not arise unless it is asserted (e.g., in a contract or on website terms). Attribution and integrity rights last for the term of copyright. But it is worth noting that UK employees retain moral rights even where the copyright is owned by their employer. Moral rights can be waived, but they cannot be transferred. For our purposes, assuming a copyright is valid, the question is then who owns the moral rights in digital surrogates versus who can enforce them. GLAM employees and independent contractors who create digital media often waive moral rights or agree for the GLAM to be attributed as part of their contract. However, the GLAM will not receive the rights to enforce the moral rights as part of this bargain.
Details around moral rights can get technical and complicated. To aid this, Creative Commons has translated the essential elements of the right of attribution to licences for BY (Attribution) and the ​right of integrity to licences for ND (NoDerivatives). All UK GLAMs using CC licences at the very least use the BY licence, as CC BY is both the most permissive licence and starting point for all other variants. Some also opt for the ND licence to prohibit any remixing, modifications or adaptations of images and data. These include: Fitzwilliam Museum (Own website); Glasgow Museums (Art UK); Guernsey Museums & Galleries (Art UK); Historic Royal Palaces (Art UK); Kirklees Image Archive (Art UK); Leeds Museums & Galleries (Art UK); Manchester Art Gallery (Art UK); Museum of Classical Archaeology (Own website); National Gallery (Own website); National Portrait Gallery (Own website, Art UK); Pitt Rivers Museum (Own website); Royal Academy of Art (Own website); Royal Museums Greenwich (Own website); Sir John Soane’s Museum (Art UK); Tate (Own website, Art UK); University of York (Own website); Wallace Collection (Own website).
Language that resembles moral rights by requiring attribution, preventing modification or imposing other restrictions are in countless GLAM policies. Many terms go far beyond the protections available under UK law.
With respect to the rights to attribution and to object to false attribution, GLAMs regularly require users to acknowledge the organisation and sometimes the author of the work. For works in the public domain, the author’s right of attribution has expired. This means there is no legal obligation to cite the author (even though it is good practice). That these obligations are included in policies suggests they are meant to be contractually enforceable. Some GLAMs provide examples to aid users, which notably are of public domain artworks. The examples below are taken directly from policies:
   Claude Monet, Poplars, 1891, Image © The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
   Leonardo, The Virgin of the Rocks, 1491–1508 Photo © The National Gallery, London
   Joseph Michael Gandy, ‘An imagined view of the Bank of England in ruins’, 1830, Photo: © Sir John Soane’s Museum, London
The Fleming Collection also prohibits the “false attribution of authorial or copyright credits, and the removal of any FWAF metadata from digital file formats”. By contrast, Birmingham Museums Trust includes a standard image by-line on items that states, “Optional attribution: Photo by Birmingham Museums Trust, licensed under CC0.” With respect to the right of integrity, policies range in scope. The Atkinson Art Gallery prohibits modification of materials. The National Museums Northern Ireland prohibits content from being “altered in any way”. The Fleming Collection prohibits “inaccurate or distorted reproductions”. Tate prohibits users to “extract from, manipulate, alter or modify the Materials in any way”. The Wallace Collection prohibits “inaccurate or distorted reproductions, colour treatments, alterations or adaptations of website content, except where other terms allow”.
​Some GLAMs extend these policies to accuracy, deception and reputational damage. The Horniman Museum conditions reuse on “the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context”. Sir John Soane’s Museum conditions reuse on “the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context or altered format (such as stretched, compressed, coloured or altered in any way so as to distort its original format)”. In another policy, the Museum permits image cropping but requires written permission for any other changes or modifications. The policy also states “[i]mages may not be used in any way which could be considered to be deceptive or which could reflect unfavourably upon the good name or reputation of Sir John Sloane’s Museum”. In its Academic Licence, the National Portrait Gallery prohibits similar use that is “deceptive or which damages the good name or reputation of the National Portrait Gallery, the artist, or the persons depicted in the images”. It is worth noting that this term applies to scholarly research with which the Gallery might disagree or construe as derogatory to the institution, the artist or even the person depicted in the underlying portrait. Lastly, the Bodleian Libraries prohibits use “which might adversely affect the image, reputation, goodwill, distinctiveness or prestige” of not only the Bodleian Libraries and its collections, but also the University of Oxford.
In reality, it is difficult to know whose moral rights are at the heart of these terms: the underlying author’s or the GLAM’s? At least one example extends this claim to even the persons depicted in the artwork. The combined effect across GLAMs is to significantly limit the ways in which the public can use digital collections for a range of typical purposes, as well as atypical and innovative purposes, like computational data and/or as a medium to create new cultural works and knowledge.
4.2.9. Differential treatment in images
Many policies delineate between images created for the purposes of performing the public task and activities falling outside of it. For those within the public task, some policies create sets of documents, claim IP rights in them, and/or make use of the Re-Use of the Public Sector Information Regulation 2015 exception to commercialise the documents. In practice, this means GLAMs hold back high-resolution images and entire datasets for commercialisation while publishing low resolution images or basic datasets online under various statements and formats. What is defined as ‘high-resolution’ or of commercial value varies by GLAM.
For the British Museum both “low resolution and higher resolution (up to A5 size images)” and “[c]ollection online object data and textual material published on the website” fall “[i]nside the public task and [are] generally available for free non-commercial reuse” via the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence. Also “[i]nside the public task and re-usable for commercial purposes at a charge” are “higher resolution images of the collection,” the fees and terms for which are available through the British Museum Images commercial licensing website. Accordingly, the British Museum considers its digital surrogates as documents created under the public task but makes use of the exemption for documents in which the Museum (allegedly) holds intellectual property rights. Different resolutions are published for public reuse, depending on the reuse purpose. The Museum considers inside the ​public task but not available for re-use "[a]ny documents where re-use would be against the public interest having regard to [...] in the case [of] human remains held in the collection, the principles set out in Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums (DCMS 2004) [... and] in the case [of] cultural property generally, the principles set out in the Combating Illicit Trade: Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material (DCMS 2005)". This latter category of documents and reuse is relevant to the next section on Ethical Statements and cultural sensitivities.
Birmingham Museums Trust also takes a high/low resolution approach. Documents "generally available for free re-use" under the public task include "If]actual data about works in the collection which has been intentionally published" and "[dligital images of works in the collection up to 3Mb files, at no more than 300dpi, limited to copyright-expired works" under the CC0 public domain dedication. Available for re-use at a charge are "higher resolution images of copyright-expired works in the collection, whether as jpegs or tiff images". In truth, this qualifies Birmingham Museums Trust and others in the 'All eligible data - no new rights' category as falling outside its scope and instead within the 'Some eligible data - no new rights' category. However, because the images are of such a high resolution, this GLAM remains categorised by this report as 'All eligible data - no new rights'. Others remain in that category for similar or different reasons, as discussed in Section 3.4.
The Science Museum Group defines "the production of replicas or reproduction of objects relating to science and technology, or of souvenirs" and the "sale of information" related to that as activities that "diversify and increase private and commercial funding opportunities". Within these activities, the policy distinguishes between (1) "[s]creen-resolution images of objects in the collection where a Creative Commons license is specified on the webpage [and] documents expressly produced for free and unrestricted public access in partnership with public bodies" and (2) those that are "high-resolution" and "available through the Science and Society Picture Library". Similar to the British Museum, the Group defines documents having regard to human remains (and the DCMS Guidance on human remains) and cultural property (and the DCMS Guidance on due diligence) as "inside the Public Task but not generally available for re-use". In the notes, the Group specifies that "[c]ollection records (not including photographs) and some other datasets are inside the public task and where specified on the webpage, are available for free reuse [as CC0 1.0]".
By contrast, both the Government Art Collection and The National Archives exclude images from documents produced in the performance of the public task (or at least from documents subject to the Open Government Licence). The Government Art Collection's public task is not on the website, but the Crown copyright policy includes a section on Copyright of images' that states "[i]mages of works of art on this site are not covered by the Open Government licence. If you wish to reproduce any of the works featured on this site, please contact the Government Art Collection." The National Archives informs users that images fall outside the public task: "The National Archives actively seeks to maximise the public value of its collection, including by undertaking activities that are beyond its Public Task. For example, other people or organisations might commission or fund the digitisation of public records (producing digital surrogates), in partnership with The National Archives, to widen access or to achieve a commercial return. Information created for these purposes ​is outside our public task." The policy goes on to clarify this applies to digital surrogates of public records both "created or funded by others for commercial purposes" as well as those created by the institution "to widen access to the collection".
The British Library does not define documents differently for these purposes in online policies. On the public task webpage, the Library's mission is "to make our intellectual heritage accessible to everyone for research, inspiration and enjoyment" and it views within "collection management related activities as part of its Public Task" the "collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storing, adaptation, digitization, facilitation of retrieval and consultation, disclosure by transmission or dissemination, and licensing of any or all material held by the British Library on behalf of the nation" (italics added).
The National Galleries of Scotland public task highlights a number of "customary practices" the Galleries is responsible for outside of specific statutory or regulatory provisions, including the "[p]roduction of replicas or reproduction of works of art or souvenirs" and the "Is]ale of informative material in relation to works of art or replicas or souvenirs". Pursuant to this, the 'Copyright & image licensing' policy offers two non-commercial formats for reuse: the "lower resolution 'share' image" (600 pixels width) and the "higher resolution 'download' image". The user can right-click and directly download a lower resolution 'share' image, which "contains a banner at the bottom of the artwork information and its copyright holder". The example uses a public domain artwork. Information on the artwork and its copyright holder is unclear. The image delivered is at such a small size the text is difficult to read, even when enlarged (see below).
Based on the banner information, the user could understand the rightsholder to be (1) Sir Henry Raeburn, (2) Antonia Reeve or (3) National Galleries of Scotland (if the logo placement counts). Under the CC licence selected (CC BY-NC 3.0), a user could crop out that information without violating its terms. For higher resolution 'download' images, users must create a "free user account" to reuse content for certain non-commercial activities outlined in the policy. No banner accompanies these images. For higher resolution images or uses beyond these policies, commercial licences must be obtained.
Finally, a number of institutions treat public domain works differently from in-copyright works when claiming and managing the IP rights. For example, images of public domain works made by Tate are published as © Tate, CC BY NC-ND 3.0. However, in-copyright works are published according to the underlying rights of the work itself (e.g., © David Hockney). In theory, the same methods of reproduction and interpretations of copyright law should apply to both digital surrogates. But ​practice reveals they are treated differently across UK GLAMs.
4.2.10. Ethical statements and cultural sensitivities
Statements on decolonisation, cultural sensitivities and ethical reuse are also made in GLAM policies. These can relate to intellectual property rights, open access or even digital access to collections.
While Bristol Museum & Gallery does not have a copyright policy, a significant portion of its website is dedicated to decolonisation statements that focus on the physical collection, the buildings and other aims. Policies extend to: ‘Action on decolonisation’ with a public commitment; ‘Our aims and objectives’ with the working group’s terms of reference; ‘Decolonisation – FAQs’ with many questions and answers on specific collections and colonial connections in general; and a ‘Decolonisation Blog’ which collates Museum activities on decolonisation. No digital policy or decolonisation of digital collections is considered within these.
Some policies provide general notice to the user that the digital collections and data they encounter can be problematic. Some go further by inviting corrections and feedback on collections. Some provide educational context around issues embedded in collections.
The Horniman Museum explains the database includes “language taken from historical documents may now appear outdated and offensive” and some “information on objects that are considered secret or sacred by some communities”.
Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums includes a notice that some information and images “may include images of objects that could offend some people, or that local communities might consider sacred or special”.
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology does not have a copyright policy but acknowledges its “catalogues include historic descriptions and representations that are factually inaccurate, racist and otherwise inappropriate” and makes a commitment “to the work of addressing hurtful legacies in the collections we care for”. It also asks users for “help in identifying images or data that cause offence or harm”, providing an email address for feedback and suggestions.
The Pitt Rivers Museum does not have a copyright policy but warns users in two places. The first is presented as a sort of terms of use pre-screening upon clicking ‘Search the Collections’, which users must agree to before proceeding. A ‘Cultural warning’ puts users on notice that “some records document research into people and cultures using scientific research models and language from the 19th and 20th centuries. These depicted people in ways that are outdated and offensive.” It goes on to explain there is “information on, and photographs of, objects associated with ritual or ceremonial activity yet to be classified as public. In some indigenous communities, there may be prohibitions relating to the age, gender initiation and ceremonial status or clan of the person who may see them. The database also contains the names of deceased persons, which may cause sadness or distress, particularly to relatives of these people.” The second notice is provided via the ‘Collections online’. It asks users “to bear in mind that these are working databases that are constantly being updated. It is important to see how objects were perceived in the past; therefore we preserve all the ​information ever recorded. Some of this historic terminology is discriminatory and offensive. Please note the databases include records for objects that are considered secret or sacred by some communities.” The policy concludes by inviting information and corrections via email.
The Royal Museums Greenwich has a policy on ‘Culturally sensitive images’, that is worth quoting at length. It begins by highlighting “[i]mages of the transatlantic slave trade and colonial slavery are historic visualisations of an inhuman system of suffering and exploitation. Many show the casual violence that was endemic in the slave system. Black people, whether free or enslaved, are almost always depicted in a derogatory and racially stereotyped manner, reflecting the widespread European prejudices of the day.” It goes on to warn users of the language and visual treatment around such imagery. In another paragraph, the policy calls attention to “exploration” and the ideas it embodied in relation to “scientific knowledge, individual endurance and state power”. It highlights that “[m]ore recently, discussions about what exploration is, who its heroes are and the roles of Indigenous communities in expeditions have led to much more nuanced understandings of these histories”. The policy concludes with a commitment to “write captions that are accessible, respectful and accurate, consulting with individuals, communities and specialists to address the complex and challenging themes within our collections” and invites feedback by email.
Unlike other policies, the LSE Library notes these issues should also impact reuse. The policy informs users that “[i]n addition to copyright, there may be other rights or considerations that affect the way you are able to re-use our content. For example, some of our content may contain information about individuals who may still be alive or contain culturally or racially insensitive language or imagery.” The Library makes a commitment to flag issues “in the item or collection description” where they are aware of them but informs the user “it is your responsibility to ensure that your use is ethically and legally sound”.
Some policies are specific to human remains. The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology discloses with respect to its “small collection of human remains, these specimens are currently being recatalogued to conform to the UCL policy on human remains and so have not been published at the present time”. By contrast, Leeds Museum & Galleries notes its “substantial collection of human remains which were once parts of living people” and commits “to caring for them in a respectful manner while also making the collections available for research and engagement where appropriate, in line with our human remains policy”. This Human Remains policy clarifies the Museum “will only use images of human remains in interpretation or in marketing (including the website) after approval by the Human Remains Working Group” and “only if pertinent to the accompanying content”. For the galleries, the Human Remains policy “permits respectful photography of human remains on display” which “is supported by visitor consultation carried out in 2018”. Returning to the main policy, the text highlights research undertaken during the ‘Skeletons: our Buried Bones’ exhibition, which “asked visitors what they thought about having and using human remains, and allowing photography of human remains on display, in order to inform the human remains policy ​going forward”. The policy provides a link to the final report.
In addition to these, the Science Museum Group and the British Museum define documents related to human remains separately in public tasks. In the ‘Copyright and permissions’ policy, the British Museum goes further, explaining they reserve all rights for some digitised materials “due to cultural sensitivities, or if doing so would be against any existing Museums policies (such as our human remains policy)”. In this sense, the Museum’s approach is to make these images available online, claim IP rights as © Trustees of the British Museum and use copyright law (in theory) to secure and monitor ethical reuse. Users can locate relevant images and records via searches for tags like ‘human remains’, ‘human skeleton remains’, and ‘human mummy’.
Finally, the British Library has a statement specific to “ethical and permitted usage of recordings”, which was prepared with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). It begins by explaining “[d]ue effort has been made to ensure culturally sensitive material has been cleared for use or has been removed from wider access”. The collections themselves are digitised and made available “purely for the purposes of safeguarding them and for making them available for noncommercial research, study and private enjoyment” and include “culturally sensitive materials, among them ethnographic sound recordings”. The policy prohibits use and alteration “in ways that might be derogatory to the indigenous and local communities who are traditional custodians” It notes that while “the British Library, or contributors to its collections, may be the owners of intellectual property in the digitisation of the sound recordings and in the sound recordings themselves, the Library recognises that broader rights and interests [in the materials] reside with the traditional custodians”. As a result, “prior informed consent of the British Library and/ or [sic] other contributing parties, as well as the traditional custodians is required for the republication and commercial use of part or whole of these materials”. This reflects the many layers of rights that can arise in such materials, while also suggesting additional rights can apply to the digital file as a result of their digitisation.
Aside from these, no other policies discussed rights in reuse, cultural sensitivities and how users might consider context around digital collections and data encountered online. This does not mean such work is not ongoing within institutions, only that the majority of public facing policies do not extend to these concerns. This reflects the wider dynamic of such research and activities being access-focused, project-based or exceptions to collections management, rather than comprehensively built into systems and operational budgets in a way that reflects their systemic embeddedness among UK collections and concerns of reuse.
4.2.11. Discussion of open access
Finally, policies were reviewed for express mentions of open access. Some policies include or link to specific statements on open access, but few explain what this means or use open access to anchor ​the policy’s framing. Others do explain open access but limit its scope.
The Ashmolean Museum makes an open access commitment in its ‘Digital strategy’, which includes as its vision the goal of embracing “the opportunities offered by digital to democratise access to collections, eliminating geographic, cultural and economic boundaries”. The policy does not consider that copyright in digital surrogates and data may frustrate these goals by erecting new boundaries that are geographic (e.g., UK copyright law), cultural (e.g., Museum oversight around reuse) and economic (e.g., licensing fees to access and reuse images). Instead it focuses on digital access (rather than open access) around an ambition “to create full machine-readable metadata and digital surrogates of our unique collections and make them available and discoverable online, and to preserve and safeguard them for future generations” (italics added). To fulfil this, the Museum will “[o]ptimise access to the collections for digital teaching and research” and “[u]tilise the collections to enhance public participation and engage new audiences locally, nationally and internationally”. To support this, the Museum will “[c]reate an efficient sustainable model for preserving and managing the collections” and “develop commercial strategies and partnerships, where appropriate, to grow income streams and ensure the financial sustainability of our operations”. The ‘Terms of Use’ reserve all rights in images of collections, galleries and buildings and require “© Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford” to accompany any reuse for non-commercial and educational purposes only.
Others define ‘open access’ around information and research, rather than collections and digital surrogates. The Science Museum Group clarifies its goal to “enable audience’s [sic] reuse of images” is achieved through the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence. By contrast the CC BY 3.0 licence “applies to ‘open access’ content such as the Science Museum Group Journal” and the CC0 “public domain attribution” (italics added, as this is a public domain dedication and does not require attribution) applies to “datasets such as the collection metadata”. In the ‘Guidance on reuse’ document accompanying the public task, the notes read: “The Science Museum Journal is inside the public task and generally available for free reuse with attribution (“Open access”) on Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY.”
The National Portrait Gallery and the British Library reference public funding as supporting open access goals. In the ‘Open Access Policy’, the Library includes a statement “in support of Open Access to research that has been funded from the UK public purse”, which goes on to convey this position is specifically in reference to research. The Gallery frames public funding and its impact not within open access, but rather with respect to “non-commercial research”. Because this is research “whose objective is to put new ideas into the public domain for public benefit and at no cost to the end user”, the Gallery explains “[i]t will therefore normally be financed from public or charitable funds”. This statement is made in the Academic Licence the Gallery supports for the purposes of allowing reuse for non-commercial purposes, rather than the Gallery’s policy on copyright and open access and how public funding impacts its own activities.
The Fleming Collection limits its commitment to providing “online access” to “as many of the works ​in its collection as possible” via the Search the Collection website.
The entry point for data collection on ‘open access’ was the copyright or terms of use policy. Other policies may exist across GLAM websites and not be referenced within these policies.
4.3. Risking the public domain
Despite whether a work is in the public domain or in-copyright, there are many legitimate reasons why digital collections cannot be made available for public reuse, legal and otherwise. However, such reasons are rarely explained to the user in a way that supports the public mission, educational remits and stewardship of the digital collections. Users need to understand open access, copyright and the public domain, in order to understand how they can use collections.
GLAMs can be perceived to be sources of authority based on the website terms and language presented to users. In reality, there are considerable levels of anxiety around the application of laws and the desire to comply and respect rights. Yet traditional copyright policies that treat in-copyright and public domain materials together and use dense legalese generally place the onus on the user to ensure no infringements of law occur. This assumes significant knowledge and understanding of the user. Such policies can become barriers to access and reuse, regardless of what their individual terms permit or prohibit. They reveal more about individual GLAM needs and attitudes than how users can access and reuse digital collections across the UK. The data demonstrates a pressing need to curtail these practices, for the benefit of GLAMs, their staff and users, and the UK economy.
These policies reveal incredibly risk averse approaches, even to public domain materials that should pose little to no risk for GLAM digitisation and public reuse. Many participants noted an absolute fear of copyright and the risk averse nature of institutions, particularly as present among national GLAMs. One commented risk was perceived in publicising the GLAM’s risk averse approach on the website as it could signpost to the public that infringing materials may be online. Another commented the sector as a whole was “more focused on worries than realities”. When asked whether disputes arose with rightsholders, participants gave minor examples of standard takedown requests or payment of ad-hoc licensing fees.
Participants also provided no or very few examples of dispute resolutions with users. Given there is no actual enforcement of these policies, including the copyright claim to digital surrogates, why have them? Such policies attempt to control reuse of public domain works in collections despite contradicting the UK IPO’s interpretation of copyright law and the drain on resources it causes to the GLAM.
By contrast, there is a real risk of TaNC projects and policies replicating these approaches and creating new barriers to the content and even the outputs created with public funding. Participants from all GLAMs expressed genuine concern around the future relevance of their collections: “If we don’t release this stuff, we’re going to get written out of history. Images that reappear are going to be the ones that are openly licensed or in the public domain.” Considered against the wider open GLAM climate, traditional practices paint a bleak future for the reuse of public domain heritage materials in UK collections.
* ↑ Not included in the sample are UK GLAMs are without online digital collections and UK GLAMs with digital collections online but without a copyright policy, or with an unclear copyright policy.
* ↑ Copyright and permissions, 8. British Museum (Closed licences)
* ↑ Terms of Use, 23. Leeds Museums & Galleries (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Privacy and Legal, 54. Tank Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Crown copyright, 16. Government Art Collection (All rights reserved)
* ↑ An introduction to copyright, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ An introduction to copyright, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ Copyright and reuse, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ IPR and reproduction policy, 50. Royal Pavilion Brighton Museums (All eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ Websites and online services, 7. British Library (Some eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ Terms and conditions for re-using content, 25. LSE Library: The British Library of Political and Economic Science (Some eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ Intellectual property rights policy, 24. LlyfrgelI Genedlaethol Cymru (National Library of Wales) (All eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ Copyright, 24. Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru (National Library of Wales) (All eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ IPR and reproduction policy, 50. Royal Pavilion Brighton Museums (All eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ Image Requests, 60. York Museums Trust (All eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ Terms of use, 53. Sir John Soane's Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Terms of use of our website, 13. Fitzwilliam Museum (Closed licences)
* ↑ Image Rights, 17. Guernsey Museums & Galleries (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Reproducing Museums Sheffield's Images, 32. Museums Sheffield (All rights reserved)
* ↑ An introduction to copyright, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ Academic licence details, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ CDPA 1988, ch. II, s. 29-32
* ↑ See Appendix 2.
* ↑ Terms & Cons, 3. Atkinson Art Gallery (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Terms and conditions, 12. East Riding Archives (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Terms, 22. Kirklees Image Archive (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Terms of Use, 23. Leeds Museums & Galleries (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Copyright, 26. Manchester Art Gallery (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Images and photography service, 37. National Museums Liverpool (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Copyright, 38. National Museums Northern Ireland (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Copyright and reuse, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ Privacy and Legal, 54. Tank Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ See Ronan Deazley and Robert Sullivan 'Copyright, Licences, and Statutory Fraud (2011) Journal of Media Law 3(2): 287-303
* ↑ Terms of Use, 2. Ashmolean Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Terms of use, 5. Bodleian Libraries (Closed licences)
* ↑ Website terms and conditions, 58. Victoria & Albert Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Use this image, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ Copyright and reuse, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ Copyright and reuse, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ Academic licence details, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ Reproducing Museums Sheffield’s Images, 32. Museums Sheffield (All rights reserved)
* ↑ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode
* ↑ See Appendix 2.
* ↑ Terms of Use, 5. Bodleian Libraries (Closed licences)
* ↑ Copyright and permissions, 8. British Museum (Closed licences)
* ↑ Website terms and conditions, 58. Victoria & Albert Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Copyright and reuse, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ Download this image, 47. Royal Armouries (Closed licences)
* ↑ Imperial War Museum Non-Commercial Licence, 21. Imperial War Museums (Closed licences)
* ↑ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode
* ↑ Terms & Conditions, 14. Fleming Collection (All rights reserved); Copyright & image licensing, 34. National Galleries Scotland (Closed licences)
* ↑ A court will not compel a party to act according to a term that is deemed unenforceable. In some cases, an entire contract may be unenforceable, such as when notice, the offer or acceptance of the contract itself is deemed insufficient.
* ↑ Terms and Conditions, 6. Bradfords Museums & Galleries (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Search our collections, 56. Tyne & Wear Archiive & Museums (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Archives online, 12. East Riding Archives (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Terms & Cons, 3. Atkinson Art Gallery (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Archives online, 12. East Riding Archives (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Creative Commons and photo sharing, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/legal/copyright/creative-commons-and-photo-sharing/
* ↑ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:War_art_in_The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom)
* ↑ Publishing images, 41. Parliamentary Archives (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Creative Commons licences and Tate, 55. Tate (Closed licences)
* ↑ Terms and Conditions, 20. Horniman Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ See Section 2.
* ↑ CDPA 1988, ch. IV, ss. 77-89
* ↑ CDPA 1988, s. 79(6)
* ↑ CDPA 1988, ss. 11(2), 79(3) and 82
* ↑ See Appendix 2.
* ↑ See Appendix 2.
* ↑ Terms & Conditions, 14. Fleming Collection (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Image byline, 4. Birmingham Museums Trust (All eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ Terms & Cons, 3. Atkinson Art Gallery (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Copyright, 38. National Museums Northern Ireland (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Terms & Conditions, 14. Fleming Collection (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Creative Commons licences and Tate, 55. Tate (Closed licences)
* ↑ Copyright and images, 59. Wallace Collection (Closed licences)
* ↑ Terms and Conditions, 20. Horniman Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Use of images and copyright, 53. Sir John Soane’s Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Terms of use, 53. Sir John Soane’s Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Terms of use, 53. Sir John Soane’s Museum (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Academic licence details, 39. National Portrait Gallery (Closed licences)
* ↑ Terms of use, 5. Bodleian Libraries (Closed licences)
* ↑ Discussed in Section 2.1.
* ↑ Public task, Re-use of documents, 8. British Museum (Closed licences)
* ↑ Public task, 4. Birmingham Museums Trust (All eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ Public task, Guidance on reuse, 51. Science Museum Group (Closed licences)
* ↑ Crown copyright, 16. Government Art Collection (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Public task, 33. The National Archives (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Public task, 7. British Library (Some eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ Our Public Task, 34. National Galleries Scotland (Closed licences)
* ↑ Copyright & image licensing, 34. National Galleries Scotland (Closed licences)
* ↑ ND is not present to prohibit image modification.
* ↑ See 61. Bristol Museum & Gallery (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ Item, Collection Information, 20. Horniman Museum (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ Search Our Collections, 56. Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ Collections, 62. Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ Search the collections, 43. Pitt Rivers Museum (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ Collections online, 43. Pitt Rivers Museum (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ Culturally sensitive images, 49. Royal Museums Greenwich (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ Terms and conditions for re-using content, 25. LSE Library (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ UCL Petrie Collection Online Catalogue, 42. Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ Archaeology and Numismatics, 23. Leeds Museums & Galleries (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ Leeds Museums & Galleries Human Remains Policy, 23. Leeds Museums & Galleries (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ Archaeology and Numismatics, 23. Leeds Museums & Galleries (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ https://museumsandgalleries.leeds.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Visitor-Responses-to-Human-Remainsin-Leeds-Museums-and-Galleries-final-report.pdf
* ↑ Copyright and permissions, 8. British Museum (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection
* ↑ Sounds, Licences, 7. British Library (C. Ethical policies)
* ↑ For example, see https://www.tate.org.uk/about-us/projects/provisional-semantics; https://photoarchive.paul-melloncentre.ac.uk/groups/Archival-Silence-and-Historical-Bias; https://www.bl.uk/collection-guides/major-named-collections-of-printed-booksnow-in-the-british-library
* ↑ Digital strategy, 2. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Terms of Use, 2. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (All rights reserved)
* ↑ Creative Commons, 51. Science Museum Group (Closed licences)
* ↑ Guidance on reuse, Public task, 51. Science Museum Group (Closed licences)
* ↑ Open Access Policy, 7. British Library (Some eligible data - no new rights)
* ↑ Academic licence details, 39. The National Portrait Gallery Academic Licence (Closed licences)
* ↑ Terms & Conditions, 14. Fleming Collection (All rights reserved)