The	Impact	of Open	Access	on Galleries,	Libraries,	Museums,	&	

Archives

Effie	Kapsalis

Smithsonian	Emerging	Leaders Development	Program

April	27,	2016
2

Executive	Summary

For	the	purpose	of	this	document,	“open	access”	is	defined	as	making	public	domain	

materials	open	for	use	without	any restrictions,	and	making	copyrighted	materials	

available	under	the	provisions	of	fair	use (non-commercial,	educational).	

More	than 50	institutions	have,	to	varying	degrees, pursued	open	access over	the	last	

decade, removing	technical	and	copyright	barriers	to	their	digitized	collections and	

resources. A	strengthened	institutional	brand, increased	use	and	dissemination	of

collections,	and	increased	funding	opportunities have	been some	of	the	benefits	

associated	with	open-access	initiatives.

A	recent	Andrew	W.	Mellon	Foundation	study,	“Images	of	Works	of	Art	in	Museum	

Collections:	The	Experience	of	Open	Access,	a	Study	of	11	Museums,” found	that	among	

the	museums	studied,	none	that	enforced	copyright	restrictions	made	any	significant	

surplus	or	profit	against	their	expenditures.	It	concluded,	“real	and	perceived	gains	far	

outweigh	the	real	and	perceived	losses	for	every	museum	in	the	study	that	has	made	a	

transition	to	an	open	access	approach.”1

Recently,	several	funders,	including	the	Bill	& Melinda	Gates	Foundation,	Ford	

Foundation,	and	William	and	Flora	Hewlett	Foundation, have	made	open	access	either	a	

requirement	for	gift	recipients or	a	factor	in	assessing	potential	gifts.	

Furthermore, President	Barack	Obama’s Open	Government	Initiative,	launched	in	2009,

has	built	an	increasing	expectation	from	the	public	that	all	government	entities	will	

move	towards practices	that	are	more	open, which	places	federal	entities	at	risk	for	

public	perception	of	not	pursuing	best	practices.	

Finally,	as	crowdsourcing	initiatives	gain	traction	in	the	cultural	heritage	space,	it	is	the	

organizations	that	prioritize	openness	and	sharing that	are reaping	the	most	benefits.

Introduction

Over	the	past 20 or	more years,	digital	technologies	have	dramatically	changed	the	way	

we	consume	information, impacting	revenue-generating	activities	for	businesses from	

music	to publishing	to	education.	Content	is	abundant	and	competition	for	attention	is	

at	an	all-time	high.	This	phenomenon	has	impacted	cultural	heritage,	science	and	art	

																																																							 1

Kelly,	Kristin, “Images	of	Works	of	Art	in	Museum	Collections:	The	Experience	of	Open	Access,	a	

Study	of	11	Museums,” p.	24.	Prepared	for	The	Andrew	W.	Mellon	Foundation.	Council	on	Library	and	

Information	Resources,	June	2013.	http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub157/pub157.pdf,	

accessed	7/8/2015.
3

institutions, as	the	public	now	expects	our	collections	to	be	easily	accessible	without	

restrictions.	

Early	adopters	in	the	gallery,	library,	archive and	museum	(GLAM)	sector have	tested	

the	waters in	opening	digital	representations	of	collections to	unrestricted	use, despite	

fears	over loss	of	revenue,	intellectual	control	and	in-person	visitation.	While	it	was	

immediately	clear	that	concerns	about	loss	of	intellectual	control	and	in-person	

visitation	were	not	well	supported,

2 only	now	do	we	have	information	on	the	financial	

impact	of	open	access (as	defined	below).

More	than 50	institutions3 have	pursued	open	access through	some	type	of	public	

domain or	Creative	Commons	designation, removing,	to	varying	degrees, technical	and	

copyright	barriers	to their	digitized	collections (Several	of	these	efforts are	summarized

in	Appendix	A). In	some	instances,	organizations	have	gone	further	and	made	use	of	the	

Creative	Commons “Free	Cultural	Works”	designation,	CC04,	which	is	an	internationallyrecognized	license	that	allows	users	to	copy,	modify,	distribute	and	perform	the	work,	

even	for	commercial	purposes,	all	without	asking	permission.	Creative	Commons	is	a	

non-profit	organization	that	develops,	supports,	and	stewards	legal	and	technical	

infrastructure	in	order	to	maximize	digital	creativity,	sharing,	and	innovation.	

With	over	a	decade	of	GLAM	open	access,	several trends	and	insights	have	emerged for	

these	organizations:

• While	open	access	may	cause	a loss	in rights	and reproduction revenue	in	limited	

cases, it can	also	lead	to	significant new	opportunities	in	fundraising and	brand	

licensing.

• Open	access	results	in	cost	savings	associated	with	rights	and reproduction	

management	overhead.

• Open	access	allows	organizations	to	realign	staff	with	more	mission-critical	

activities, resulting	in	more	efficient	and	less	costly	image	management	and	

digitization	functions.

• By	furthering research,	educational	and	creative	activities,	open	access	also

advances the	missions of	these	institutions.

• Open	access	significantly	increases	use	and	awareness	of	an	institution’s	

collections.

• Open	access	creates	a strengthened	and	more	relevant	brand.

																																																							 2 Kelly 2013,	p.	23–24 3 https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/GLAM

4 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0
4

Defining	“Open	Access”

Open	access	means different	things	to	different	organizations.	The	Open	Knowledge	

Foundation	(OKF)	defines	Open	Knowledge	as,	“what	open	data	becomes	when	it’s	

useful,	usable	and	used.”

5 The	key	features of	Open	Knowledge,	as	defined	by	OKF, are:

• Availability	and	access

• Reuse	and	redistribution

• Universal	participation

As	part	of	its	Open	Definition	project,	OKF further	elaborates,	“Open	

means anyone can freely	access,	use,	modify,	and	share for any	purpose	(subject,	at	

most,	to	requirements	that	preserve	provenance	and	openness).”

6

For	the	purposes	of	this	paper	and	its	appendices,	we	will	use	the	following	definitions:

1. For	public	domain	and	other materials for	which	an	institution	has	consciously	

relinquished	its	copyright	(often	expressed	through	a	CC0	license),	open	access	

generally	means	full	access	and	use	without	restriction.

2. For	copyrighted	materials,	open	access	means access	and	use	only	when	

consistent	with	fair	use,	which	is	non-commercial,	educational	and/or

transformative	use.	

However,	it	is	also	important	to	acknowledge	that	there	is	no	universal	consensus	about	

the	definition	of	open	access,	and	among	practitioners,	much	confusion	persists	about	

what	constitutes	open	access.	For	example,	the	announcement	of	the	online	availability	

of	the	entire	Freer	Sackler	collection	under	the	brand	“Open	F|S”	has	created	the	

mistaken	impression	that	the	Freer	Sackler	is	providing	open	access	as	defined	above.	In	

reality,	the	Freer	Sackler	team	avoided	any	mention	of	“open	access,”	while	still	trying	

to	communicate	that	the	completeness	of	information,	as	well	as	availability	of	highresolution	images,	marked	a	new	milestone	in	terms	of	the	“openness”	of	its	collection.	

Other	museums,	most	notably	the	Metropolitan	Museum	of	Art,	have	been	roundly	

criticized	by	open	access	advocates	for	their	use	of	the	term	“open	access”	when	the	

actual	terms	of	the	data	release	fall	significantly	short	of	community	expectations7.

																																																							 5 https://okfn.org/opendata/

6 http://opendefinition.org/ 7 “Metropolitan	Museum	of	Art	400,000	Images,	With	Restriction,”	by	Jillian	Steinhauer,	Hyperallergic,	

May	19,	2014,	http://hyperallergic.com/127278/metropolitan-museum-of-art-releases-400000-

images-with-restriction ,	accessed	09/04/2015.	
5

The	Business	of	Rights	and Reproduction	

In	2004,	a	Mellon	Foundation study,	“Reproduction	charging	models	&	rights	policy	for	

digital	images	in	American	art	museums, ”8 examined	“the	cost	and	policy	models	

adopted	by	art	museums	in	the	USA	in	arriving	at	pricing	structures	for	delivering	

surrogates	of	unique	or	rare	artworks	and	artifacts as	digital	objects.”9 Through	a	survey	

and	interviews	with	over	120	U.S.	art	museums,	the authors of	the	study found that:	

None	of	the	museums	interviewed	claimed	to	make	any significant	surplus	or	

profits	against	their	expenditure ... Everyone	interviewed	wants	to	recoup	costs	

but	almost	none	claimed	to	actually	achieve	or	expected	to	achieve	this.	Internal	

transactions	often	account	for	50-75%	of	service	activity	and	are	usually	

uncharged ... Even	those	services	that	claimed	to	recoup	full	costs	generally	did	

not	account	fully	for	salary	costs	or	overhead	expenses.	Many	had	gained	their	

equipment	through	special	funding	and	thus	equipment	was	again	not	a	direct	

cost	item	in	relation	to	the	price	tag	offered.10

Open	Access in	U.S. Government

On	his	first	day	of	office in	2009,	President	Barack	Obama	launched	the	Open	

Government	Initiative11 with	three	mandates:

• Government	should	be	transparent.

• Government	should	be	participatory.

• Government	should	be	collaborative.12

The National	Archives	released	its first Open	Government	Plan in	2010 with	the	goal	of	

supporting greater	access to their	holdings	online.

13 The	Library	of	Congress	similarly	

does not	reserve	any	rights	to	its collections14 and	places	the	onus	on	members	of	the	

public	to	clear	rights	on	their	own.

15 In	April	2014,	the	National	Gallery	of	Art	announced	

																																																							 8 Tanner,	Simon,	“Reproduction	charging	models	&	rights	policy	for	digital	images	in	American	art	

museums.”	An	Andrew	W.	Mellon	Foundation	study.	King’s	Digital	Consultancy	Services,	August	2004.	

http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/pubs/USMuseum_SimonTanner.pdf,	accessed	

7/8/2015.

9 Ibid,	p.	5

10 Ibid,	p.	33 11 https://www.whitehouse.gov/open 12 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ 13 http://www.archives.gov/open/open-plan.html 14 http://www.loc.gov/legal#copyright 15 http://www.loc.gov/pictures/about/#rights
6

the	release	of	35,000	images on	its	website into the	public	domain, for	all	uses	including	

commercial.

16

Open	access	in	scientific	research	has	become	a	priority	with	the	White	House	in	the	last	

two	years.	In	2013, the	White	House	Office	of	Science	and	Technology	Policy (OSTP)	

issued	a	memorandum mandating	that	Federal	agencies	with	more	than	$100	million in	

R&D	expenditures	needed	to	develop	plans	to	make	the	published	results	of	federally	

funded	research	freely	available	to	the	public	within	one	year	of	publication.17 Later	in	

2013,18 the	White	House	mandated	that	government	information	be	both	“open”	and	

“machine-readable.”	In	March	2014, the	administration	issued	a	memorandum	on	

scientific	collections	with	the	following directive:	

d)	When	available	and	where	not	limited	by	law,	make	freely	and	easily	

accessible	to	the	public	all	digital	files	in	the	highest	available	fidelity	and	

resolution,	including,	but	not	limited	to,	photographs,	videos,	and	digital	3D	

models,	and	associated	records	and	documentation,	describing	or	characterizing	

objects	in	government-managed	scientific	collections.19

In	the	education	sector,	the	White	House	Office	of	Science	and	Technology	Policy	and	

the	U.S.	Department	of	Education	(ED)	are	working	on	identifying	opportunities	for	

implementing open	access	policies	to inform	the	Administration’s	open	government	

initiatives, including	the	Open	Government	National	Action	Plan,

20 which will	impact	the	

terms	associated	with	grants	awarded	by	the	Department	of	Education.	

This	has	built	an	increasing	expectation	from	the	public	that	all	government	entities	will	

comply	with	these	mandates, which	places	federal	and	governmental	agencies	at	risk	for

public	perception	of non-compliance.

GLAM Funders and Open Access

Recently,	several	foundations have	made	open	access	either	a	requirement for	grant

recipients or	a	factor	in	assessing	potential	grantees.	Three	large	funders	have	made	

open	access	a	requirement	for	content/publications	created	with	grant	dollars:	the	Bill	

																																																							 16 http://openglam.org/2014/04/15/us-national-gallery-of-art-releases-35k-public-domain-images/ 17 https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/22/expanding-public-access-results-federallyfunded-research 18 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-andmachine-readable-new-default-government- 19http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_memo_scientific_collections

_march_2014.pdf

20 https://www.whitehouse.gov/open/partnership/national-action-plans
7

& Melinda	Gates	Foundation,	the	Ford	Foundation,	and	The	William	and	Flora	Hewlett	

Foundation.

In	January	1,	2015,	the	Bill	& Melinda	Gates	Foundation	adopted	an	open	access	policy.

The	terms	for	future	grants are	as	follows:

1. Publications	Are	Discoverable	and	Accessible	Online. Publications	will	be	

deposited	in	a	specified	repository(s)	with	proper	tagging	of	metadata.

2. Publication	Will	Be	On	“Open	Access”	Terms. All	publications	shall	be	published	

under	the	Creative	Commons	Attribution	4.0	Generic	License (CC	BY	4.0) or	an	

equivalent	license.	This	will	permit	all	users	of	the	publication	to	copy	and	

redistribute	the	material	in	any	medium	or	format	and	transform	and	build	upon	

the	material,	including	for	any	purpose	(including	commercial)	without	further	

permission	or	fees	being	required.

3. Foundation	Will	Pay	Necessary	Fees. The	foundation	would	pay	reasonable	fees	

required	by	a	publisher	to	effect	publication	on	these	terms.

4. Publications	Will	Be	Accessible	and	Open	Immediately. All	publications	shall	be	

available	immediately	upon	their	publication,	without	any	embargo	period. An	

embargo	period	is	the	period	during	which	the	publisher	will	require	a	

subscription	or	the	payment	of	a	fee	to	gain	access	to	the	publication.	We	are,	

however,	providing	a	transition	period	of	up	to	two	years	from	the	effective	date	

of	the	policy	(or	until	January	1,	2017). During	the	transition	period,	the	

foundation	will	allow	publications	in	journals	that	provide	up	to	a	12-month	

embargo	period.

5. Data	Underlying	Published	Research	Results	Will	Be	Accessible	and	Open	

Immediately. The	foundation	will	require	that	data	underlying	the	published	

research	results	be	immediately	accessible	and	open. This	too	is	subject	to	the	

transition	period	and	a	12-month	embargo	may	be	applied.”21

In	February	2015,	the	Ford	Foundation adopted	a	similar	policy, stating:		

... grantees and	consultants	will	be	required	to	make	foundation-funded	

materials	subject	to	a	Creative	Commons	license	allowing	others,	free	of	charge	

and	without	requesting	permission,	the	ability	to	copy,	redistribute,	and	adapt	

existing	materials,	provided	they	give	appropriate	credit	to	the	original	author. ...	

Project	grants	from	the	foundation	will	include a	requirement	that	the	grantee

widely	disseminate	all	copyrightable	products	funded	by	a	foundation	grant	—

including	white	papers,	research	reports,	and	websites	— and	license	them	under	

the	CC	BY	4.0 license. 22

																																																							 21 http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/General-Information/Open-Access-Policy 22 http://www.fordfoundation.org/newsroom/news-from-ford/934
8

The	CC	BY	4.0	license23 also	allows	commercial	uses.	

In	September	2014,	the	William	and	Flora	Hewlett	Foundation announced that:

...beginning this	year	we	will	ask	grantees	to	license	materials	created	with	our	

grant	dollars.	More	specifically,	the	Hewlett	Foundation	now	requires	that	

grantees	receiving	project-based	grants—those	made	for	a	specific	purpose—

openly	license	the	final	materials	created	with	those	grants	(reports,	videos,	

white	papers,	and	the	like)	under	the	most	recent Creative	Commons	Attribution	

license.	We	also	will	require	that	the	materials	be	made	easily	accessible	to	the	

public,	such	as	by	posting	them	to	the	grantee’s	website.24

The	most	recent	Creative	Commons	Attribution	license	is	CC	BY	4.0,	which	again	allows

use for	any	purpose	including	commercial.	Creative	Commons	licenses	have	become	the	

global	standard	for sharing25 across	cultural,	educational,	governmental,	and	scientific

institutions, and	offer	the	public	an	easily	understood	summary	of	the	license	as	a	

supplement	to the	actual legal	terms.

The	Council	on	Library	and	Information	Resources (CLIR,	see	below)	and	the	Alfred	P.

Sloan	Foundation26 also	consider	open	access	as	a	criterion	in	awarding	grants.	In	the	

last	10	years,	CLIR	has	awarded	the	Smithsonian	over	$800,000, and	Sloan	nearly	$13	

million. The	Sloan	Foundation,	which	in	2011	funded	a	study	on	Science	at	Creative	

Commons,

27 funds	basic	scientific	research.

CLIR’s	Digitizing	Hidden	Collections	program, supported	by	the	Andrew	W.	Mellon	

Foundation, is	expected	to	award	$4	million	in	2015	to	support	the	digitization	of	

“collections	of	rare	and	unique	content	in	cultural	memory	institutions.”

28 Applications	

will	be	judged	in	accordance	with	the program’s five	core	values:

• Scholarship: The	program	is	designed	to	maximize	its	impact	on	the	creation	and	

dissemination	of	new	knowledge.

• Comprehensiveness: The	program	supports	the	digitization	of	entire	(or	at	least	

quantifiably	substantial	proportions	of)	collections	of	significant	scholarly	value,	

and	encourage [sic] making	these	easily	discoverable	in	context,	alongside	

related	materials	online.

																																																							 23 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 24 http://www.hewlett.org/blog/posts/helping-good-ideas-go-further 25 https://creativecommons.org/who-uses-cc 26Alfred	P.	Sloan	Foundation.	“Alfred	P.	Sloan	Foundation	Grant	Application	Guidelines,”	May	22,	

2014,	p.	6.	

http://www.sloan.org/fileadmin/media/files/application_documents/proposal_guidelines_non_rese

arch_trustee.pdf,	accessed	9/1/2015. 27 https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Science 28 http://www.clir.org/hiddencollections
9

• Collaboration: The	program	promotes	strategic	partnerships	rather	than	

duplication	of	capacity	and	effort.

• Sustainability: The	program	promotes	best	practices	for	ensuring	the	long-term	

availability	and	discoverability	of	digital	files	created	through digitization.

• Openness: The	program	ensures	that	digitized	content	will	be	made	available	to	

the	public	as	easily	and	completely	as	possible.29

The	Andrew	W.	Mellon	Foundation	that funds the	CLIR	Digitizing	Hidden	Collections	

program has	funded	the	two	main	reports	on	open	collections	in	art	museums	written	in	

the	past	decade.	

While	corporations	have	been	slower to	adopt	open	access,	some	of	the	most	

innovative,	forward-looking	corporations	have	adapted	the	concept	of	“open,”	

especially in	technology	and	biotech.	 Tesla	has	made all	its	patents	open	source,	and	

Amgen,	Merck,	Sanofi	and	others	are	banding	together	in	open	source	R&D. Autodesk,	a	

leading	company	for	design,	engineering,	and	entertainment	software	is	giving	away	all	

its	software	for	free	to	educational	institutions.	The	company	has	started	to	require	a	

similar	approach	from	the	causes	it	supports:	Brian	Mathews,	Vice	President,	Group	CTO	

at	Autodesk,	stated	“we	were	working	closely	with	a	501c3	non-profit,	donating	well	

over	six	figures.	Ultimately,	as	a	direct	consequence	of	lack	of	sufficient	open	access	and	

related	issues,	we	decided	to	redirect	our	monetary	support	elsewhere	and	reduce	our	

involvement	to	basic	consulting.”		

Finally,	while	the	J.	Paul	Getty	Trust	does	not require	open	access	in	its	grant making,	

the	Getty	Museum	has	taken steps to	make	its collections	available	for	open	access30.	

In	all,	GLAM	institutions	reliant	on	these	foundations that	now	either	require	or	

prioritize	open access when	selecting grantees could	lose	out	on	this	important	

institutional	support.	In	the	future, grant	proposals	to	these	same	organizations	might	

be	rejected	as	a	result	of	an	organization’s	restrictive terms	of	use.

Open	Access and	Brand	Licensing

Some	institutions,	especially	those	which	coupled strong	marketing	campaigns	with	

their	open	access	programs,	have	seen	a	major	increase	in	brand	licensing	opportunities.

In	the	case	of	the	Rijksmuseum	in	the	Netherlands,	their	open	collections	initiative	

increased	awareness	of	the	Rijks	brand	so	much	that	their	name	became	synonymous	

with	famous	artists	such	as	Vermeer	and	Rembrandt	(see	Appendix	A.) This	increased	

																																																							 29 http://www.clir.org/hiddencollections/applicants 30 “The	Getty	Open	Content	Program,”	http://www.getty.edu/about/opencontent.html,	accessed	

7/8/2015.
10

brand	reputation	led	to	major	Dutch	and	multinational	brands	seeking	brand	

partnerships.	The	Rijk’s	partnership	with	Heineken	has	led	to	packaging	design	awards	

and	their	national	grocery	chain,	Albert	Heijn,	has	developed	product	lines	inspired	by	

master	artworks31.

The	New	York	Public	Library	made	their	open	access	announcement	in	January	2016.	

Within	the	first	two	weeks	of	their	announcement,	they	were	approached	by	a	major	

retailer	for	brand	licensing	(see	Appendix	A.)

Replacing	small	revenues	lost	from	a	decrease	in	rights	&	reproduction	activities	was	not	

a	goal	of	many	of	the	institutions	interviewed	for	this	report.	However,	if	organizations

desired	to	replace	rights	&	reproduction	income,	brand	licensing	is	certainly	an	avenue	

worth	investigating.

Realities	and Risks

There	are	risks associated	with staying	with	restrictive	terms	of	use, as	well	as with	

adopting	an	open	access	model.	For	the	purposes	of	this	paper,	I	will	focus	on	the	risks	

that	organizations	reported	in	interviews	conducted	for Appendix A,	as	well	as	on	risks	

reported	in	a	2013	report	funded	by	the	Council	on	Library	and	Information	Resources	

(CLIR)	and	prepared	by	the	Andrew	W.	Mellon	Foundation: “Images	of	Works	of	Art	in	

Museum	Collections:	The	Experience	of	Open	Access,	a	Study	of	11 Museums.”

32

The	risks and	downsides of	adopting	an	open	access	model	are:	

• Additional traffic to	organizational	websites from	public	demand resulting	in

increased demand	on	technical	infrastructure.

• Increased	workload	for	staff members in	fulfilling	requests,	if	self-service	

download	is	not	implemented.	

• Loss	of	revenue	from	rights	and reproduction	activities for	public	domain	

materials	(but	not	from	licensing	the	organization’s brand).33

• Some	loss	of	intellectual	control;	however,	this	is	likely	much	less	than	feared.34

																																																							 31 “Special	Sinterklaas	Rijksmuseum	assortment	in	stores,”	https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/nu-inhet-museum/nieuws/albert-heijn-partner-rijksmuseum, accessed	2/16/16 32 Kelly	2013,	p.	23-29.	 33 While	not	the	main	impetus	for	adopting	an	open	access	policy,	some	institutions	such	as	the	New	

York	Public	Library	and	the	Rijksmuseum,	have	seen	increased	activity	around	brand	licensing.	

34 See Kelly	2013,	p.	27:	 “Loss	of	control	fades	as	a	concern ...	the	worst	fears	of	museum	staff	have	

not	been	realized.	No	one	cited	inappropriate	uses	of	images	thus	far.” As	the	National	Gallery	of	Art	

reported	(Kelly	2013,	p.23),	“The NGA had already lost control of many images of its most famous works 

of art, and it was better to make a high-quality, high resolution image available.”
11

As	is	summarized	in	the	Mellon/CLIR	report,	“Real	and	perceived	gains	far	outweigh	the	

real	and	perceived	losses	for	every	museum	in	the	study	that	has	made	a	transition	to	

an	open	access	approach.”35

The	risks/downsides associated	with staying	with	more	restrictive	Terms	of	Use	are:	

• Decreased funding	opportunities as	more foundations	require open access (see	

“Foundations	and	Open	Access,”	above).

• Decreased	brand	licensing	revenue	opportunities.

• Reduced	opportunities	for collaboration	with	other cultural	heritage,	art	and	

scientific	organizations,	as	well	as with the	federal	government.

• As	Wikipedia	requires	public	domain	media,	organizations	with	restrictive	terms	

of	use	can’t contribute	to	this	popular	online	encyclopedia	that	is	in	the	top	10	

for most	popular	websites	worldwide, and	contributes	to significant increases	in

exposure	of	GLAM content	(see	Figure	A in	Appendix	A).	Additionally,	Wikipedia	

volunteers	are	less	likely	to write	articles	about	material	that	is	restricted.	

• Reduced	awareness	and	use	of	collections as	more	open	institutions	claim	public	

attention.	

• Reduced reputation	as	“world	class”	and	relevant.

• Potential	reduction	in activity	from online volunteers due	to	perception	that	

their	work	is	not	supporting	an	open	effort.

• Large	amounts	of	staff	time	spent	on non-mission-critical	tasks such	as	

responding	to	image	requests.

36

Elevated	brand recognition/reputation	and increased use	and	dissemination	of	

collections	were	the	top	two	benefits	associated	with	open	access	initiatives, as	detailed	

in	Appendix	A.	According	to Smithsonian	public	affairs	specialist,	Sarah	Sulick:

Opening	up	our	collection	lives	up	to	the	promise	of	our	brand	‘for	the	increase	

and	diffusion	of	knowledge.’ It	not	only	is	a	public	good,	it’s	also	a	wonderful	

public	relations	strategy;	we	give	people	the	ability	to	use	our	content	in	ways	we	

can’t	even	imagine	and	they	become	ambassadors	for	the	vast	cultural	and	

scientific	resources	that	the	Smithsonian	holds.

In	terms	of	collections	use	and	dissemination,	once	an	institution	makes	its	collections	

open,	digital	volunteers	do	the	work	to	disseminate	them	even	further.	When	the	

Wikipedia	community	migrated	images	from	the	Smithsonian’s	Flickr	Commons	account	

to	Wikimedia,	the	collections	saw	a	huge	increase	in	search	engine placement.	For	the	

Smithsonian	Institution	Archives	alone,	the	images	on	Wikimedia	Commons	have	

																																																							 35 Kelly	2013,	p.	24 36 In a blog post entitled “Reusing Te Papa’s collections images, by the numbers,” Adrian Kingston, digital 

collections analyst at the Te Papa Museum of New Zealand, writes that since releasing the museum’s 

collections online without restrictions (in June 2014), staff members have been spared from approving 

14,000 image requests — and writing at least 28,000 emails.

http://blog.tepapa.govt.nz/2015/04/10/reusing-te-papas-collections-images-by-the-numbers/
12

received	1	million	times	as	many views	as	those	on	the	Archives’ own	website.	

Additionally,	Wikipedia	volunteers	in	an	edit-a-thon	used	the	images	to	write	articles	

about	prominent	female	scientists,

37 resulting	in	more	than	60	new	articles	— including	

one	on	our	own	former	Under	Secretary	for	Science,	Eva	J.	Pell.

38		

An	increasing	number	of	national and	worldwide	GLAM	projects, such	as	the	Digital	

Public	Library	of	America39 and	Europeana40,	are embracing	open	access.	While	the	more	

restrictive	organizations are able	to	contribute	data	about	its	collections	to	these	portals,	

organizations	that	are	able	to	share	digital	media	associated	with	their	data	do	better	in	

these	spaces and	have	more	opportunities	for	partnering (see	Appendix	A.)

Finally,	as	crowdsourcing	initiatives gain traction	in	the	cultural	heritage	space,	it	is	the	

organizations	that	are	most	open (releasing	collections	as	public	domain	or	CC0	when

possible) that	are	reaping the	benefits.	According	to	the	Smithsonian	Transcription	

Center’s	top	volunteer,	Siobhan	Leachman:

The	“don’t	want	to	feel	taken	advantage	of”	sentiment	comes	from	my	belief	

that	if	I’m	donating	my	time	as	a	volunteer,	generating	content	and	data,	I	

regard	that	data/content	as	not	just	for	the	institution	I’m	working	for	but	for	

everyone.	If	the	content	I’ve	generated	out	of	a	“for	the	greater	good”	motivation	

is	licensed	under	a	restrictive	license, I	would	feel	taken	advantage	of.	And	I	

would	quickly	stop	generating	content	for	that	institution.	There	are	plenty	of	

crowdsourcing/citizen	science	projects	out	there	desperate	for	volunteers,	and	

that	“market”	is	only	going	to	get	more	and	more	competitive.	I	regard	my	“pay”	

for	being	a	volunteer	as	the	open	access	to	the	content	I	generate.

Conclusion

The	case	studies examined	in	Appendix	A find that	fears	about	loss	of	intellectual	

control	of	collections,	or	reductions	in	the	number	of	in-person	visits,	due	to	open	

access	policies	are	largely	unfounded.	With	an	open	access	policy,	revenue	from	rights	

and	reproduction	activities	are	reduced,	but	retaining	more	restrictive	terms	of	use	may	

cost	organizations in	funding	opportunities,	staff	time,	and	reputation.	As	GLAM	

organizations consider	their	future	sustainability	as	their	“typical”	audience	ages	out,	

they	must	examine	the	impact	that	more restrictive	terms	of	use	will	have	on	their	

relevance	as	an	organization.		With	information	from	a	decade	of	open	access	programs	

																																																							 37 Smithsonian	Institution	Archives	“Women	in	Science”	Wikipedia	To-Do	List:	

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_30/To-do_list 38 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_J._Pell 39 http:// http://dp.la/ 40 http://www.europeana.eu/portal/
13

in	the	GLAM	world,	organizations	now	are	in	the	advantageous	position	to	assess	their

terms	of	use	based	on	evidence	and	the	sector’s	collective	experience.
14

Appendix	A:	Open	Access	Case	Studies

The	following	national	and	international	case	studies	look	at	the	results	of	galleries,	

libraries,	archives,	and	museums	(GLAM)	pursuing	an	open	access	model.	While	they	

mostly	pursued open	access	for	mission-related	reasons,	several	have	noted	increased	

opportunities	for	fundraising	because	of	their	open	stance.	Additionally,	all	report	

significant	increased	awareness	and	use	of	collections	coupled	with	improved	public	

image.

U.S.	Organizations

Cooper	Hewitt,	Smithsonian	Design	Museum

Interviewee

Sebastian	Chan,	former	director	of	digital	and	emerging	media,	Cooper	Hewitt

Overview

Cooper	Hewitt,	Smithsonian	Design	Museum,	received	in-kind	work	from	3D	Systems	to	

develop	a	3D	model	and 3D	data	of the	Carnegie	mansion.	Cooper	Hewitt	has	also	

released	its	collections	data41 with	the	Creative	Commons	“CC0” open	license,

42 which	

means	that	the	Cooper	Hewitt	reserves	no	rights	to	these data—so	essentially,	they	are

in	the	public	domain.	Seb Chan,	founder	of	Cooper	Hewitt	Labs, explains this	decision:

Philosophically,	too,	the	public	release	of	collection	metadata	asserts,	clearly,	

that	such	metadata	is	the	raw	material	on	which	interpretation	through	

exhibitions,	catalogues,	public	programs,	and	experiences	are	built.	On	its	own,	

unrefined,	it	is	of	minimal	‘value’	except	as	a	tool	for	discovery.	It	also	helps	

remind	us	that	collection metadata	is	not	the	collection	itself.

43

Finally,	Cooper	Hewitt	released	the	font it uses for	its identity	and	brand	under	an	

‘Open	Font	License’	which	permits	unrestricted	commercial	and	non-commercial	use, as	

well	as	modification.44

Scope

3D	scan	of	the	Carnegie	Mansion,	collections	metadata,	and	Cooper	Hewitt	font.	

Funding

																																																							 41 Collections	data	provide descriptive	information	about	the	object,	such	as	its	title,	author,	medium,	

etc.	The Smithsonian	considers	its	metadata	to	be	in	the	public	domain,	and	it	is	freely	shared	

through	the	Digital	Public	Library	of	America.

42 http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 43 Chan,	Sebastian,	“Releasing	the	collection	on	GitHub,”	Cooper	Hewitt	Labs	blog,	February	2012,	

http://labs.cooperhewitt.org/2012/releasing-collection-github/ 44 http://www.cooperhewitt.org/open-source-at-cooper-hewitt/
15

In-kind	work	from	3D	Systems.

Results

• Cooper	Hewitt	is	seen	as	a	leader	in	digital	humanities.

4546

• Public	awareness of	Cooper	Hewitt’s	efforts has	enhanced its new	brand	identity	

as	a design	resource	to	be	used	and “not	just	looked	at.”

• According	to	Chan,	the	use	of	open	data and	resources has	helped	shift	the	focus	

of	curatorial	and	registration	staff	toward “the	visitor	point of view	rather	than	

the	perfection	of	collections	metadata. This has	had	innumerable	implications	

but	has	been	key	to	their	organizational	shift	towards	the	visitor.”

Dallas	Museum	of	Art

Interviewee

Rob	Stein,	former	deputy	director,	Dallas	Museum	of	Art

Scope and	Copyright	Designation

In	2013,	the	Dallas	Museum	of	Art	received	a	$9	million	anonymous	gift	to	support	free	

admission	and	free	online	access	to	its	entire	collection	of	22,000	collections	objects.47

Of	that	total,	$5	million	was	for	digitization	of	the	museum’s	permanent	collection	along	

with	the	creation	of	educational	content	to	support	“free	online	experiences	with	art.”	

Public	domain	collection	objects	are	listed	as	such, and	whenever	copyright	allows,	highresolution	images	are	available	for	download.	The	gift	also	includes	resources	to	

measure	the	educational	impact	of	the	project,	information which	is	forthcoming.

Motivation	for	Adopting	Open	Collections

“As	an	institution	it	was	important	for	us	to	publish	our	entire	collection	online,”	says	

Stein. “The	reasoning	went	beyond	transparency	and	openness:	we	felt	that	we	needed	

to	more	positively	and	strongly	broadcast	the	fact	that	the	Dallas	Museum	of	Art	has	a	

deep	and	encyclopedic	collection.”

48

Results

The	donation	has	allowed	the	DMA	to	reconsider	and	increase	the	efficiency	of	its

processes	for	collections	digitization,	data	management,	and	publication.	The museum

																																																							 45 According	to	the	CUNY	Digital	Humanities	Resource	Guide

http://commons.gc.cuny.edu/wiki/index.php/The_CUNY_Digital_Humanities_Resource_Guide),	

“digital	humanities”	pertains	to research	and	teaching	at	the	intersection	of	computing	and	the	

humanities	disciplines.

46 Ridge,	Mia,	Editors’	Choice:	Exploring	the	Cooper-Hewitt	Collection	Round-Up,	Digital	Humanities	Now	blog,	June	21,	2012,

http://digitalhumanitiesnow.org/2012/06/editors-choice-exploring-the-cooper-hewitt-collectionround-up/.	 47 https://www.dma.org/press-release/dallas-museum-art-announces-9-million-gift-support-freegeneral-admission-and-free 48 http://mw2015.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/new-architectures-for-online-collections-anddigitization/
16

built	tools	that,	according	to	Stein,	“[provide]	staff	with	a	unified	resource	to	consult	the	

level	of	completion	for	image	and	object	information;	analytics	to	track	status	of	image	

production	and	ingest;	and	a	simple	toolkit	to	make	adjustments	to	the	presentation	of

this	information	online.” Hence,	staff	are	able	to	easily	view	the	status	of	an	image	in	

relation	to	its	data,	digitization,	and	publication.	

Getty	Open	Content	Program	

Interviewee

Stanley	Smith,	head	of collection	information	and access,	J.	Paul	Getty	Museum

Scope	and Copyright	Designation

There	are	112,239	objects	available	on	the	Getty	Museum’s	collection	webpages. Of	

these,	approximately	18,000	are	designated	as	“Open	Content”

49 and	high-resolution	

copies	can	be	directly	downloaded.	Additionally,	the	Getty	Research	Institute	has	

approximately 83,000	Open	Content	images	available	on	its website.	

Motivation	for	Adopting	Open	Collections

The	Getty	realized	that	the	revenue	the	museum was collecting	(about	$45K	in	FY2013)	

to	license	use	of	its images	was	outpaced	by	the	expense	of	doing	so	(see	related	Mellon	

Foundation	sponsored	report,	Changing	Models	and	Rights	Strategy	for	Images	in	

Museums	and	Beyond).50 But	mostly	the	decision	was	related	to	the organization’s

mission: “The	Getty	was	founded	to	promote	'the	diffusion	of	artistic	and	general	

knowledge'	of	the	visual	arts,	and	this	new	program	arises	directly	from	that	mission,"	

says James	Cuno,	President	and	CEO	of	the	J.	Paul	Getty	Trust.	"In	a	world	where,	

increasingly,	the	trend	is	toward	freer	access	to	more	and	more	information	and	

resources,	it	only	makes sense	to	reduce	barriers	to	the	public	to	fully	experience	our	

collections.51"

Results

The	response	has	been	“overwhelmingly	positive,” according	to	Smith.	There	were	

initial	concerns	that	open	access	would	cause	a	huge	increase	in	workloads,	but	since	

the	delivery	of	images	is	largely	automatic	via	the Getty’s website,	this	worry	was	

unfounded.	

The	change	in	policy	has	freed	up	a	number	of	staff	members	to	concentrate	on	more	

mission-critical	projects.	Additionally,	several	institutions	have	followed	the	Getty’s	lead,	

so	it	is perceived	as	a	leader.	

																																																							 49 Getty	definition	of	Open	Content:	“The	Getty	makes	available,	without	charge,	all	available	digital	images	to	which	the	Getty	holds	the	rights	or	that	are	in	the	

public	domain	to	be	used	for	any	purpose.	No	permission	is	required.” http://www.getty.edu/about/opencontent.html.	 50 http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/us-art.html 51 The	Getty	Newsdesk,	Getty	Announces	New	Program	Lifting	Restrictions	on	Use	of	Digital	Images,	http://news.getty.edu/pressmaterials/press-releases/getty-open-content-images.print.	
17

Finally,	the	change	in	policy	has	resulted	in	a	large	increase	in	downloads	of	collections	

from	the Getty’s	website	(over	325,000	downloads	since	launch), so they	believe	they	

are	increasing	the	public’s	engagement	with	art.

National	Gallery	of	Art

Interviewee

Alan	Newman,	chief	of digital	imaging	and visual	resources, National	Gallery	of	Art

Scope	and Copyright	Designation

The	National	Gallery	of	Art	(NGA)	has	released	45,000	public	domain	images	with	the	

following	terms:	

NGA	Images	is	a	repository	of	digital	images	of	the	collections	of	the	National	

Gallery	of	Art.	On	this	website	you	can	search,	browse,	share,	and	download	

images.	A	standards-based	reproduction	guide	and	a	help	section	provide	advice	

for	both	novices	and	experts.	More	than	45,000 open	access digital	images	up	to	

4000	pixels	each	are	available	free	of	charge	for	download	and	use.	NGA	Images	

is	designed	to	facilitate	learning,	enrichment,	enjoyment,	and	exploration.

Motivation	for	Adopting	Open	Collections

According	to	Alan	Newman,	chief	of	imaging	and	visual	resources,	it	was	mainly	a	

mission-driven	decision.	Personally,	he	was	inspired	by	Kenneth	Hamma’s paper	from	

2005,	Public	Domain	Art	in	an	Age	of	Easier	Mechanical	Reproducibility.

52

As	an	institution,	NGA was frustrated	that	most	of	the	great	works	in	its collection	were	

reproduced	poorly	on	thousands	of	websites.	They	wanted	to	change	this	by	releasing	

high-quality	images	to, over time, replace	the	poor	reproductions.	

At	the	time	of	this	decision,	NGA	was	re-evaluating	the	roles	of	staff members involved	

in	fulfillment.	They	preferred	to	have	the	staff	focus	on	helping	the	public	find	the	right	

images	for	projects	and	to	increase	the	amount	of	digitized	collections	available.	

Potential	revenue	loss	was	not	considered	“at	all”	in	policymaking	according to	Newman,	

although	revenues	had	been	decreasing	for	several	years	prior	to	this	decision.	Nearly	

all	senior NGA	staff	members	felt open	access	was	the	correct	public	policy	for	the	

gallery. Staff as	well	as	public support for	the	open	access	initiative	was	nearly universal.

Finally,	NGA	received	funding	for	rapid	digitization	of	its collections	from	two	

foundations:	the Samuel	H.	Kress	Foundation	and the Mr.	and	Mrs.	Raymond	J.	Horowitz	

Foundation	for	the	Arts.	One	of	the	foundations	required	that	the	collections	be	

																																																							 52 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november05/hamma/11hamma.html
18

published	openly, while	the	other	foundation	funded	the	initiative	as	a	result	of	NGA’s	

open	access	policy.

Results

• Staff	throughout	the	National	Gallery,	as	well	as	the	public,	have	benefited	

from	a	self-serve	image	repository.	Scholars,	staff	included,	are	more	easily	

able	to	access	images	for	publications	and	research.

• The	gallery	was	able	to	shift	the	emphasis	of	the	remaining	staff	members	

to	helping	clients	and	digitizing	collections	rather	than	processing	

paperwork.

• “Universal	goodwill.”	According	to	Newman,	there	was	a	“profound	effect”	

on	both	the	NGA	staff	and	public	with	the	publication	of	a	self-service	image	

website.	There	is	little	wait and	little	paperwork.	

• The	gallery	has received	two	million	downloads	in	three	years, increasing	

the	public’s	awareness	and	use	of	its collections.	

• The	gallery did	not	fill	a	recently	vacated	rights	and reproduction	staff	

position,	but	this	has	not	negatively	impacted	the	gallery’s work.

New	York	Public	Library

Interviewee

Shana	Kimball,	Manager	of	Public	Programs	and	Outreach, New	York	Public	Library	Labs

Scope	and	Copyright	Designation

In	early	2016,	the	New	York	Public	Library	released 187,000	high-resolution	images	on	

their	Digital	Collections	platform53 as	public	domain	removing	any	restrictions on	re-use	

or	necessity	for	permissions.	

Motivation	for	Adopting	Open Collections

The	main	impetus	for	their	open	access	release was	to	better	fulfill	their	mission, “...to	

inspire	lifelong	learning,	advance	knowledge,	and	strengthen	our	communities.”

Building	on	the	success	of	a	2014	release of	20K	high-resolution	cartographic	works	in	

the	public	domain,	there	had	been	growing	desire	to	enhance	access	to	all	public	

domain	works	in	NYPL's	Digital	Collections.	A	2014	staff reorganization	brought	

digitization,	metadata,	and	rights	&	reproduction	staff	under	the	NYPL	Labs	team,	which	

set	the	stage	for	a	cohesive	and	unified	project,	with experimentation,	openness,	and	

engagement	at	its	center.	

Their	open	collections	release	was	done	in	that spirit	with	a	suite	of	announcements;	

enhanced	API,	enhancements	to	the	collections	interface	for	easy	download	and	print	

orders,	CC0	metadata	release	on	GitHub,	new	visualizations	and	demonstration	projects	

																																																							 53 http://www.nypl.org/blog/2016/01/05/share-public-domain-collections
19

built	by	Labs	staff	using	their	API	(e.g. Fifth	Ave	Then	and	Now,	Mansion	Maniac,	

Navigating	the	Green	Books, etc.),	and	a	call	for	candidates	for	their	remix	residency54.

Results

• They	significantly	grew	their	audience	for	their	digital	collections; doubling	their	

previous	baseline of	traffic,	receiving	nearly	300	applications	for	their	residency	

program,	and	dramatically	increasing	use	of	their	collections	API.

• They	have	not	lost	“significant” income	from	rights	&	reproductions	activities	

and	they	continue to	fulfill	requests	for	collections	items	not	in	the	public	

domain.

• Increased	public	participation	- hundreds	of	user-generated	remixes	contributed	

on	social	media	platforms.

• Since January	2016,	they	have	received	over	100	press	mentions,	covering	all	

aspects	of	the release;	the	collections	themselves,	the	remix	residency,	the	R&D	

demonstration	projects,	and	the	broader	story	of	digitization	at	NYPL.

Smithsonian: Flickr	Commons	Project

Interviewee

Effie Kapsalis,	head	of	web,	new	media	and outreach,	Smithsonian	Institution	Archives

Overview

A special	cultural	heritage	photography	portal	called	Flickr	Commons,

55 launched	in	2008,	

has	the	goal	of	exposing	“the	hidden	treasures	from	the	world’s	public	photography	

archives.”	

The	Library	of	Congress	was	the	first	member, with	the	Smithsonian	joining in	June	2008.	

All	images	in	the	Commons	must	have	the	copyright	terms,	“no	known	copyright	

restrictions,”	which	is	a	designation	the	Library	of	Congress	created	since	a	large	part	of	

its	collections	are	unpublished	and	the	author	hasn’t	been	dead	for	75	years.	This	puts	

the	onus	on	the	public	to	clear	rights	for	the	images.	

Scope

To	date,	the	Smithsonian	has	contributed	more	than 3,500	images	from	more	than 12	

divisions, including	the	National	Museum	of	the	American	Indian,	Smithsonian	

Institution	Archives,	Smithsonian	Libraries,	and	Smithsonian	Astrophysical	Observatory.

Funding

The	Smithsonian	receives	no	funding	for	participating	in	the	Flickr	Commons.	

Results

																																																							 54 http://www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl/fellowships-institutes/remix 55 https://www.flickr.com/commons
20

• Increased	exposure:	To	date,	the	3,200+	images	(a	small	fraction	of	the	

Smithsonian’s entire	collection)	have	received	over	26	million	views,	which	is	an	

average	of	30,000	views per	month	(see	Figure	A	below). This	is	a	significant

increase	in	collections	recognition	and	use.	One	unit	participating	in	the	

Commons	said,	“After	three months	on	Flickr,	our	collections	received	nearly	as	

many	visits	as	during	the	previous	five years	on	our	website.”	

• Donation:	The	Smithsonian	Institution	Archives	(SIA)	received	a	donation of	10	

rare	photographic	negatives	from	the	Scopes	Trial56 as	a	result	of	sharing	the	

Archives’ own	Scopes	Trial	photos	to	the	Commons.	The	donor’s	stated	reason	

for	giving	the	Archives the	photos	was,	“I	appreciate	the	way	the	photos	the	

Smithsonian	has	are	available	online	for	all	to	see.”	The	donor	would	not	as	

easily	have	found	these	photos	if	they	weren’t	available	on	the	Commons.

• New	volunteers:	Visitors	to	the	Commons	have	spent	many	hours	tagging	photos	

as	well	as	participating	in	SIA’s	annual	call	for	help	identifying	unknown	female	

scientists	in	its collection	for	Women’s	History	Month.

57

• Press:	The	Smithsonian	has	received	at	least	760	press	mentions	since	2008	as	a	

result	of	its	participation	in	the	Flickr	Commons.	News	outlets	include	Scientific	

American,	Buzzfeed,	NPR’s	Radiolab,	CNET,	CBS	News,	and	the	New	York	Times.

• Goodwill:	The	public	gives	the	Smithsonian	an	enormous	amount	of	credit	for	

sharing	this	relatively	small	pool	of	images.

Smithsonian: Wikipedia	

Interviewees

Karen	Weiss,	head	of	digital	operations,	Archives	of	American	Art

Sara	Snyder,	former	webmaster,	Archives	of	American	Art;	current	chief	of	digital	at	the	

Smithsonian	American	Art	Museum

Overview

In	2011,	the	Archives	of	American	Art	(AAA)	hosted	the	first	“Wikipedian-in-Residence”58

at	the	Smithsonian.	To	date,	more	than	sixteen	Wikipedia	edit-a-thons59 have	been	held,

inviting	Wikipedia	volunteers	into	the	Smithsonian	to	create	articles	about	the	

Smithsonian’s	collections,	people,	and	resources.	

To	make	stronger	Wikipedia	articles,	volunteers	request images	to	illustrate	articles.	In	

order	to	contribute	media	to	Wikimedia	Commons,	the	media	had	to	either	be	in	the	

																																																							 56 http://siarchives.si.edu/blog/new-donation-scopes-trial-photos-smithsonian-archives 57 One	example:	https://www.flickr.com/photos/smithsonian/3398615048/in/album72157614810586267/

58 A	volunteer	who	helps	cultural	heritage	institutions	navigate	the	Wikipedia	culture	and	increase	

representation	of	content	related	to	the	institution on	Wikipedia	and	Wikimedia.	 59 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian_Institution/Events
21

public	domain	or	assigned	a	Creative	Commons	license	that	allows	for	commercial	

uses.60

Scope

AAA	contributed	approximately	320	public	domain	Works	Progress	Administration	

(WPA)	photographs.61 Many	of	the	3,500	Smithsonian	images	on	Flickr	Commons	have	

been	migrated	to	Wikimedia	with	the	“no	known	copyright	restriction”	status.

Funding

Funding	for	food	and	drinks	served	during	some	of	the	edit-a-thons	was	provided	by	

Wikimedia	DC.

Results

• Goodwill:	The	Smithsonian	gained	trust	with	the	Wikimedia	volunteer	

community	that	persists	to	this	day.	Wikimedia	DC provides funding	for	

volunteer	events	and	helps Smithsonian	staff members to	correct	and	enhance	

articles.		

• Public	image:	Smithsonian	collections	are	exposed	to	significantly larger	

audiences,	as	they	are	now	are	used	on	Wikipedia	in	multiple	languages to	

illustrate	articles	on	diverse	topics. In	the	case	of	AAA,	the	archive uploaded	the	

images	itself,	including	associated metadata	and	links	back	to	the	original	source,	

which	likely accounts for	Wikipedia’s	role	as	a	top	inbound	Web	traffic	referrer	

to	the	AAA	website.

• Volunteer	labor:	AAA	has not	quantified	the	hours	spent	on	Wikipedia	edit-athons	and	other	activities.	However,	for	the	Smithsonian	Institution	Archives

alone,	over	50	new	articles62 have	been	created	on women	in	science,	over	75	

new	articles63 related	to	the	Smithsonian’s	history,	and	over	700	images	

uploaded.

• Diffusion	of	Smithsonian	collections	(See	Figure	A.)	

																																																							 60 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses 61 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_Archives_of_American_Art 62 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_30/To-do_list 63

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian_Institution_Archives/Outcomes/Todo
22

Figure	A:	Comparison	of	views	received	for	an	“average”	image	on	different	websites since	2008.

Yale	Center	for	British	Art,	Yale	University	Art	Gallery,	Peabody	Museum,	and	

Beinecke	Rare	Book	and	Manuscript	Library

Interviewee

Melissa	Fournier,	manager	of	imaging	services	and	intellectual	property, Yale	Center	for	

British	Art

Scope	and Copyright	Designation

250,000	images	from	Yale’s	museums,	galleries,	archives,	and	libraries	with	the	

following	terms	of	use:

Yale	University’s	Open	Access	Policy	provides	license- and	royalty- free	access	to	

digital	images	of	public	domain	materials	in	Yale	collections.	Open	access	digital	

images	may	be	used	by	anyone	for	any	purpose.64

Motivation	for	Adopting	Open	Collections

According	to	Fournier,	Yale’s images	were	never	“a	money-maker.”	Additionally,	there	

was	pressure	on	Yale	to	not	charge	fees	because	of	its mission, and	most	requests	were	

scholarly	in	nature.	Finally,	Yale wanted	to	make	delivery	of	images	as	seamless	as	

possible	for	visitors.	

Results

Response	from	the	scholarly	community	has	been	overwhelmingly	positive.	There	was	

anxiety	as	to	what	this	would	mean	for	jobs	and	workload,	and	there	have	been	some	

																																																							 64 http://ydc2.yale.edu/documentation/faq-open-access-digital-representations-works-publicdomain-museum-library-and-archive

0	

10000	

20000	

30000	

40000	

50000	

60000	

70000	

80000	

90000	

100000	

Views	on	SIA	

Website	

Views	on	Flickr	

Commons	

Views	on	

Wikipedia	
23

growing	pains,	but	it’s	been	“refreshing”	for	staff	members to	spend	time	on	digitization	

rather	then	permission	forms.	Demand	has	been	steady,	so	there hasn’t	been	an	

overwhelming	increase	in	workload.	Additionally,	it	hasn’t	been	difficult	to	let	go	of	

small	revenue.	

It has	also	been	helpful	for	the	Yale	brand.	Yale	has received	great	press, and	is now	able	

to	participate	in	attention-garnering	projects:	Google	Art	Project,	Wikipedia,	etc.

International Case	Studies

Biodiversity	Heritage	Library	

Interviewee

Martin	Kalfatovic,	associate	director,	Smithsonian	Libraries,	and	digital	services	and

program	director,	Biodiversity	Heritage	Library

Overview

“The	Biodiversity	Heritage	Library	(BHL)	is	a consortium	of	natural	history	and	botanical	

libraries that	seeks	to	digitize	the legacy	literature	of	biodiversity	held	in	their	

collections,	and	make	that	literature	available	for	open	access	as	a	part	of	a	global	

“biodiversity	commons.’”65 The	goal	of	BHL	is	to	digitize	all	public	domain	biodiversity	

legacy	literature,	and	as	much	in-copyright	material	as they	can	obtain	permissions for.		

Researchers	need	to	consult	this	literature	to	prove	that	no	one	else	has	published	the	

species, looking at	publications	all	the	way	back	to	Linnaeus.	

Scope

The	Biodiversity	Heritage	Library	includes	95,144 titles,	161,717 volumes,	and	

46,340,752 pages of	natural	history	taxonomic	literature, which	have	a	mix	of	licenses:

public	domain,	“no	known	copyright restrictions,”	and	Creative	Commons	licenses.	

Additionally,	over	100,000	images66 from	the	literature	have	been	published	with	a	

Creative	Commons	2.0 license.67		The	digitized	literature is	available	to	researchers	

across	the	world	via	the BHL website and	the	Internet	Archive.	

Funding

The	Biodiversity	Heritage	Library	received	a	sub-award	of	the	Encyclopedia	of	Life’s	

grant	from	the	MacArthur Foundation.	The funds	came	with	the	following	terms:

																																																							 65 BHL	obtains	literature	from	24	member	organizations, including	Cornell	University	Library	and	the	

Field	Museum	Library,	and	from	hundreds	of	nodes	across	the	world,	

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/.	 66 https://www.flickr.com/photos/biodivlibrary/sets/ 67Creative	Commons	2.0	License	means	that	users	are	free	to	“Share”	(“copy	and	redistribute	the	

material	in	any	medium	or	format”)	and	“Adapt”	(“remix,	transform,	and	build	upon	the	material	for

any	purpose,	even	commercially”)	as	long	as	they	credit	the	original	source,	

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/.		
24

The	Foundation	encourages	the	widest	dissemination	of	the	Work	Product	so	as	

to	advance	the	public	good	and	discourages	Intellectual	Property	Rights	from	

being	used	to	limit	or	deny	the	public	to	the	Work	Product	or	for	a	grantee	to	

claim	exclusive	use	of	such	work	product.	

Subsequent	grants	have	been	received	from	the	Gordon	and	Betty	Moore	Foundation,	

the	Richard	Lounsbery	Foundation,	the	Institute	of	Museum	and	Library	Services,	the	

JRS	Biodiversity	Foundation,	the	National	Endowment	for	the	Humanities,	and	the	

National	Science	Foundation.

Results

• Making	the	literature	available	online	accelerates	the	pace	of	taxonomic	science	

across	the	world.	BHL	is	“infrastructure”	for	the	taxonomic	research	community.

• Dr.	Chris	Thompson,	entomologist	at	the	Smithsonian’s	Natural	History	Museum,

says, “I	love	the	BHL.	I	may	have	the	finest	private	library	on	flies	(Diptera),	but	

now	while	I	have	a	copy,	I	find	it	faster,	easier,	etc.,	to	go	to	the	BHL	and	get	the	

page	I	want,	rather	than	stepping	into	the	next	room	and	pulling	my	own	copy	

off	the	shelf	and	then	going	back	to	make	a	copy	of	that	page.”

• It’s	a	model	project	of	multiple	institutions	working	together	to	strengthen	

scientific	research.

• It	has	inspired	other	projects,	including	the Medical	Heritage	Library	for	historic	

medical	literature.

• Increased	goodwill	from	the	taxonomic	community.	

• Increased	public	participation:	Libraries	has	held	“tagging	parties”	to	make	

better	metadata	for	images	in the literature.

British	Library,	U.K.	

Interviewee

Nora	McGregor, digital	curator,	British	Library

Scope and	Copyright	Designation

Over	one million	images	in	the	public	domain with	the	following	terms:

"Public	Domain	content":	the	Content	on	the	Site	marked	"Public	Domain"	consists	

of	Content	from	the	British	Library’s	collections,	which	the	Library	believes	are	in	

the	public	domain	in	most	territories.	Content	marked	“Public	Domain”	indicates	

that	the	Library	is	unaware	of	any	current	copyright	restrictions	on	the	Content	

either	because:	(i)	the	term	of	copyright	has	expired	in	most	countries	or:	(ii)	no	

evidence	has	been	found	that	copyright	restrictions	apply.

Motivation	for	Adopting	Open	Collections

According	to	McGregor,	the	British	Library’s	first	big	foray	into	“open”	was	in	2003, with	

the	release	of	“Collect	Britain”	materials	on	the	Web	under	the	public	domain.	The	
25

library set	up	the	Digital	Research	Team	and	the	Andrew	W.	Mellon	Foundation-funded	

BL	Labs68 in	2010,	and	has made	a	concerted	push	to open	up	an	even	larger	percentage	

of	the	collections	in	a	more	systematic, business-as-usual	way.	The	BL	Labs	project	seeks	

to	enable	innovative	research	with	British	Library	digital	collections	at	scale—research

(such	as	text	mining/data	mining,	etc.)	that	requires	the	fewest restrictions	on	the	

greatest	amount	of	material.

There	was	also	a	business	need	to	enable	curatorial	staff	seeking	to	communicate	and	

promote	collections	online	via	social	media	to	have	greater	autonomy	in	making	

decisions	about	releasing	these	materials	under	the	public	domain	mark	for	wider

sharing.	At	the	same	time,	private	funding	organizations	in	the	United	Kingdom were	

increasingly	requiring	open	sharing	of	digitization	outputs,	so	the	climate	has	been	

favorable	for	moving	in	this	direction.

How	it	was	done

The	library	developed	guidelines	stating	that	creative	works	that	were	out	of	

copyright,	or	clearly	under	the	copyright	of	the	British	Library,	could	be	released	

into	the	public	domain	without	prior	approval	by	the	IP	and	Licensing	division.	This	

policy	was	rolled	out	to	the	staff	through	a	series	of	training	events	and	was	quickly	

adopted,	particularly	for curatorial	blogging	and	sharing	on	Wikimedia	Commons.69

The	Library	also	set	up	an	internal	and	cross-departmental	Access	and	Reuse	group,

which	is	chaired	by	the	head	of	intellectual	property	and	meets	monthly	to	consider	

proposals	for	changing	the	status	of	large, complex	digitized	collections	that	do	not	fall	

within	the	above	policy.	This	process	has	greatly	increased	the	frequency	and	amount	of	

material	released	by the	Library	into	the	public	domain.	

One	of	the	major	BL	Labs	and	the	Digital	Research	Team	public	domain	activities	was	to	

publish	on	Flickr	a	collection	of	over	one million	images	pulled	from	19th century	

digitized	books	as	public	domain.	This	was	done	to	test	the	library’s	“appetite	for	risk,”

and	also	to	learn	more	about	potential	uses	of	such	content	from	what	people	ended	up	

doing	with	the	collections	when	they	had	no	restrictions.	

Results

Moving	to	open	access	has	helped	British	Library	collections	reach	a	global	and	diverse	

audience	outside	of	the	library’s typical	researcher	profile,	increased	the	institution’s	

appetite	for	risk-taking,	and	enabled	innovative	research	and	experimentation	with	

Library	collections.	The	Flickr	upload	alone	has	received	254,363,839	image	views	since	

December	2013, with	383,742	tags	added	which	will	eventually	be	integrated	into	the	

library’s	collections. There	have	been	numerous	creative	re-uses70 of	the	images,	data	

																																																							 68 http://labs.bl.uk/ 69 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:British_Library 70 http://blpublicdomain.wikispaces.com/Creative+Projects
26

research	explorations,71 and	visualizations.72 Recently,	the	Library	announced	a	new	

platform,	LibCrowds,73 hosting	experimental	crowdsourcing	projects	with	the	British	

Library	digital	collections,	the	underlying	data	of	which	are also	open	and	freely	

available	for	reuse.

National	Gallery	of	Denmark	(SMK),	Denmark

Interviewee

Merete	Sanderhoff,	curator	of	digital	museum	practice,	National	Gallery	of	Denmark

Scope	and Copyright	Designation

25,000	images	(160	available	in	high	resolution	with	remaining	pending	scanning	and	

availability	in	an	upgraded	Web	interface)	with	the	following	copyright	designation:

The	copyright	on	all	of	these	artworks	has	expired	because	they	were	made	by	

artists	who	passed	away	more	than	70	years	ago.	Therefore	they	are	in	the	Public	

Domain.	This	also	means	that	you	are	free	to	use	the	images	for	any	purpose	

without	asking	permission	from	the	SMK	or	anyone	else.

Since	the	copyright	on	these	images	has	expired,	you	are	free	to:

• Share	the	images	– i.e.	to	copy,	distribute,	and	transmit	them.

• Remix	the	images	– i.e.	modify	and	reuse	them	in	new	contexts.

• Use	the	images	in	any	context	– e.g.	teaching,	research,	lectures,	publications,	

film	productions,	etc.	This	includes	commercial	purposes.

The	images	have	been	designated 'Public	Domain' to	clearly	signify	that	they	are	no	

longer	subject	to	copyright.	They	belong	to	the	public	– to	you.74

Motivation	for	Adopting	Open	Collections

According	to	Sanderhoff,	the	SMK’s	own	licensing	restrictions	on	its public	domain	

images	were	standing	in	the	way	of	interactions	the	museum desired	to	have	with	the	

public, other	museums, and	other	organizations.	

Additionally,	the	museum wanted	to	support	creativity	and	learning, in	line	with	its

mission.	Sanderhoff	asserts	that	people	need	deeper	and	more	interactive	experiences	

with	the	art	to	better	learn	about	it.

Results

1. Improved	public	image, increased	artist	collaboration,	and inspiring	

creativity:	SMK	used	to	struggle	with	a	dusty,	“old	aunt”	image	according	to	

																																																							 71 http://blpublicdomain.wikispaces.com/Research 72 http://blpublicdomain.wikispaces.com/visualisations 73 http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/asian-and-african/2015/06/introducing-libcrowds-acrowdsourcing-platform-aimed-at-enhancing-access-to-british-library-collecti.html 74 http://www.smk.dk/en/use-of-images-and-text/free-download-of-artworks/
27

Sanderhoff,	and	open	collections	is	changing	that.	The	museum	now holds

monthly	SMK	Friday	public	events	and	recently	held	one	to	celebrate	its

open	collections, called	Set	Art	Free.

75 The	events	in	general	are	a	“huge	

success”	with	around	6,000	people	attending, and	SMK	has won	numerous	

awards, which	leads	to	the	public	perception	that	it is	a	welcoming	place,	

even	a	“hip	place	in	town.”	Sanderhoff	reports	that	it	gives	SMK	a	“human

face.”	The	museum is also	able	to	hold	events	that	more	deeply	engage	the	

public	with	the	artworks	since	they	are	able	to	remix	them.	

2. Increased	opportunity	for	cultural	collaboration:	As	a	result	of	the	

museum’s open	stance,	SMK	was	partners	in	Europeana’s	Creative	project	

that	“enables	and	promotes	greater	re-use	of	cultural	heritage	resources	by	

creative	industries.”76 SMK	also	collaborates	with	Wikimedia	Commons	and	

Wikipedia	Denmark	to	foster	reuse	of	the	museum’s	images	in	Wikipedia	

entries,	and	to	contribute	to	updated	knowledge	about	art	in	the	museum’s	

collections	for	the	open	encyclopedia.

3. Increased	public	engagement:	At	many	levels,	the	SMK	has	become	more	

visitor/user-focused, and	is able	to	work	more	closely	with	visitors	and	

users	core	to	its future	user	base: school	children,	local	urban	audiences,	

immigrants	in	cultural	inclusion	projects,	young	people	needing	creative	

outlets,	etc.

4. Increased	collections	awareness:	The	museum’s collections	are	spreading	

across	Denmark	and	internationally.	For	example,	the	Copenhagen	Metro	

Company	has	hosted	exhibitions	of	remixes	of	SMK	public	domain	artworks	

on	fences	around	metro	construction	sites	in	central	Copenhagen.77

Rijksmuseum,	Netherlands	

Interviewee

Lizzy	Jongma,	collections	information	system	manager,	Rijksmuseum

Scope	and Copyright	Designation

The	Rijksmuseum	has	committed	to	digitizing	its entire	collections	(one	million	

artworks)	by	2020.78 Currently	200,000+	works	of	art	in	the	public	domain	and	40,000+	

works	of	art	under	copyright	are	available	online.	If	an	artwork	is	under	copyright,	the	

Rijks	attempts	to	come	to	an	agreement	with	the	artist/copyright	holder	to	allow	

publication	of	a	high-resolution	image	on	the	Rijks	website.

																																																							 75 http://pro.europeana.eu/blogpost/set-art-free-and-the-rest-will-follow,			

http://www.smk.dk/en/visit-the-museum/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/exhibition-mix-it-up/ 76 http://pro.europeana.eu/structure/europeana-creative 77 http://openglam.org/2013/07/08/2353/ 78 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/arts/international/a-museum-at-the-forefront-ofdigitization.html
28

Motivation	for	Adopting	Open	Collections

• The	Rijks’	major	artworks	were	already	online,	but	of	poor	quality.	Since	the	

museum	believed	that	the	majority	of	the	public,	including	students,	

downloaded	images	from	the	Web	for	use,	the	museum	wanted	them	to	

have	access	to	the	highest	quality	images.	The	Rijks	hoped	that	over	time	

the	high-quality	images	would	replace	the	poor	ones	(see	the	Europeana	

report	The	Problem	of	the	Yellow	Milkmaid). 79

• The	majority	of	the	Rijks’	collections	are	unknown	to	the	public,	colleagues,	

and	book	publishers.	Without	digitizing	and	sharing	them,	there	would	be	

no	interest	in	these	lesser-known	collections.	

• According	to	Jongma,	the	Rijks	realized	funders	are	more	interested	in	

sponsoring	digitization	projects	if	the	results	are	openly	shared.

• As	stewards	of	the	collections,	the	Rijks	considers	it	its duty	to	share	its

collections	in	order	to	educate	the	public	worldwide.	Sharing, according	to	

the	Rijks, means	making	available	the	highest	quality	image	possible.

• In	the	beginning,	the	museum	shared	its images,	but	made	a	distinction	

between	commercial	and	non-commercial	usage	which	confused	the	public.	

The	Rijks	was	“flooded”	with	questions	and	requests	and	did	not	have	the	IT	

systems	nor	manpower	to	deal	with	it.	The	museum	found	sharing	images	

for	free	was	less	expensive	and	time-consuming.

• The	Rijks	wanted	to	share	its collections	on	“large	internet	portals”	such	as	

Wikipedia,	Europeana,	Flickr,	Pinterest,	etc.	By	sharing	in	these	online	

spaces,	there	was	an	“exponential	increase	in	use”	of	its collections.	

Results

On	the	impact	of	open	access	on	staff,	Jongma	had	this	to	say:

No	one	in	the	image	department	got	laid	off.	We	lost	all	of	our	income	on	direct	

sales	of	images,	but	we	gained	a lot	of	new	friends,	sponsors,	and	new	funding	

streams	(more	than	we	lost	from	revenue). We	are	in	the	amazing	situation	that	

we	can	choose	what	projects	we	want	to	do,	and	how	we	want	to	do	them ...

Thanks	to	our	technical	infrastructure,	our	curators	can	also	collaborate	in	all	

projects	that	they	like	without	a	lot	of	technical	or	rights	management	support.

According	to	Joris	Pekel,	community	manager	at	Europeana,	the	move	to	open	

collections	has	positively	impacted	the	Rijksmuseum’s finances:

In	2010,	when	nothing	was	available	under	open	conditions,	there	was	actually	

less	revenue	than	in	2011,	when	the	first	set	was	made	available	in	hi-res	for	noncommercial	purposes.	It	is	even	more	interesting	to	see	that	in	2012,	there	is	an	

																																																							 79 http://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Publications/Whitepaper_2-

The_Yellow_Milkmaid.pdf
29

even	more	substantial	increase	in	sales	when	they	were	released	for	all	purposes.	

This	shows	that	releasing	the	medium	quality	images	to	the	public	in	2011	still	

allowed	them	to	have	a	viable	business	model,	and	in	fact	increased	the	amount	

of	image	sales.

80

Jongma	says	the	Rijks	has	felt	a	positive	impact	on	its brand	both	nationally	and	

internationally,	and	the	museum is one	of	the	strongest	brands	in	the	Netherlands:

Everyone	wants	to	work	with	us.	We	are	preferred	partner	for	Wikipedia	and	

Europeana.	I	get	at	least	a	dozen	requests	for	European	digitization	projects	a	

month	(we	actually	turn	down	most	requests	because	we	don’t	have	the	time	to	

do	all	these	projects).

On	increased	visibility	of	the	Rijksmuseum	collections,	Jongma	says:

So	far	6,499	images	from	the	Rijksmuseum	have	been	uploaded	to	Wikimedia	

Commons	which	is	the	media	file	repository	of	Wikimedia	— the	foundation	

responsible	for Wikipedia.	2,175	of	these	images	are	currently	used	in	various	

Wikipedia	articles.	These	images	have	been	shown	10,322,754	times	to	users	

visiting	the	articles	where	the	material	is	used.

According	to	Jongma,	the	Rijks’ images	are	widely	distributed	online, which	makes	

people	want	to	come	to	the	Rijks	and	see	the	original	in person.

Finally,	the Rijks	gained	revenue	from	brand	licensing	opportunities	that	didn’t	exist	

prior	to	their	open	access	initiative.	They	have	over	a	dozen	brand	licensing	agreements	

with	popular	Dutch	and	multinational	brands	such	as	Heineken,	Albert	Hein	(national	

chain	of Dutch	grocery	stores),	and KLM:

Our	Open	Data	makes	our	collection	visible	to	the	world,	so	everyone	knows	that	

the	Nightwatch/Rembrandt/Vermeer	=	Rijksmuseum...So	when	Heineken	puts	a	

Vermeer	or	Rembrandt	on	a	beer	bottle	people	know	that	Heineken	collaborates	

with	the	Rijksmuseum. It	helps	us	and	it	helps	Heineken.	The	number	of	partners	

that	use	our	images	for	their	commercial	activities	has	increased	dramatically:	

from	none	in	2010	to	a	dozen	now.

																																																							 80 http://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Publications/Democratising	the	

Rijksmuseum.pdf
30

The	Rijksmuseum/Heineken	licensing	agreement	has	received	design	awards.81.

																																																							 81 http://www.thedieline.com/blog/2015/4/27/3rd-place-beer-malt-beverages-tobacco-heinekenamsterdam-originals-the-rijksmuseum-bottles