Tweet
Re: Licensing Fees for Reproducing Museum Items?
Tim,
It's probably just a difference of perception, but I view museums as neeeding to govern their actions in a manner that differs from how individual people govern theirs.
As I said above, I take no issue with a museum that wants to be reimbursed for its time and trouble to assist with a special request. I also said nothing that would indicate that I felt the practice under discussion should be illegal or otherwise disallowed. I just wish that institutions would choose otherwise.
To take this down the "can of worms" path, what all is involved with such an agreement? Wouldn't the museum want some sort of inspection process to verify that the reproduction meets its standards? What if it is indeed a shabby reproduction? What if the museum's expectations are too high or inauthentic? No original item appears exactly the same now as it did nearly 150 years ago. Let's say a Confederate jacket whose trim and buttons were removed postwar is reproduced in its original configuration. Does the kickback still apply? How many attributes of the original article must be incorporated into a reproduction to qualify the kickback? Does the museum have the right to inspect the vendor's orders and financial records to see if the fees are paid correctly? What if the museum deaccessions the article? Would the new owner have the right to demand a similar arrangement? It is, after all, from reproductions of his item that someone else is making a profit.
Even without all the above, I still don't think such an arrangement fits into the purpose of a museum. This is the definition of a museum (or very close) that I was taught when I begun work on my Museum Studies degree: http://www.aam-us.org/aboutmuseums/whatis.cfm The part that was most emphasized in classes was "essentially educational." "Making a buck wherever possible" somehow didn't make the list. I also think the AAM's Code of Ethics (http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm) relates well, especially the section on collections. Yes, it does explicitly state that the museum has full ownership of its collections, but it also seems to state very clear that the collections are maintained for the benefit of the public, and not for the purpose of making money off that same public.
I don't personally expect private individuals to behave in the same manner. Your reaction to the author wanting access to your research for free sounds quite reasonable to me.
I'm sure you didn't mean that one individual should not be allowed to profit at all from reproducing something owned by another. If that were true, this discussion would be pointless, as the motivation for selling the reproductions would be removed.
Tim,
It's probably just a difference of perception, but I view museums as neeeding to govern their actions in a manner that differs from how individual people govern theirs.
As I said above, I take no issue with a museum that wants to be reimbursed for its time and trouble to assist with a special request. I also said nothing that would indicate that I felt the practice under discussion should be illegal or otherwise disallowed. I just wish that institutions would choose otherwise.
To take this down the "can of worms" path, what all is involved with such an agreement? Wouldn't the museum want some sort of inspection process to verify that the reproduction meets its standards? What if it is indeed a shabby reproduction? What if the museum's expectations are too high or inauthentic? No original item appears exactly the same now as it did nearly 150 years ago. Let's say a Confederate jacket whose trim and buttons were removed postwar is reproduced in its original configuration. Does the kickback still apply? How many attributes of the original article must be incorporated into a reproduction to qualify the kickback? Does the museum have the right to inspect the vendor's orders and financial records to see if the fees are paid correctly? What if the museum deaccessions the article? Would the new owner have the right to demand a similar arrangement? It is, after all, from reproductions of his item that someone else is making a profit.
Even without all the above, I still don't think such an arrangement fits into the purpose of a museum. This is the definition of a museum (or very close) that I was taught when I begun work on my Museum Studies degree: http://www.aam-us.org/aboutmuseums/whatis.cfm The part that was most emphasized in classes was "essentially educational." "Making a buck wherever possible" somehow didn't make the list. I also think the AAM's Code of Ethics (http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm) relates well, especially the section on collections. Yes, it does explicitly state that the museum has full ownership of its collections, but it also seems to state very clear that the collections are maintained for the benefit of the public, and not for the purpose of making money off that same public.
I don't personally expect private individuals to behave in the same manner. Your reaction to the author wanting access to your research for free sounds quite reasonable to me.
I'm sure you didn't mean that one individual should not be allowed to profit at all from reproducing something owned by another. If that were true, this discussion would be pointless, as the motivation for selling the reproductions would be removed.
Comment