Newspaper Forum 24/11/2008
Auckland City Libraries

Overview:

• 50 people attended, representatives from all over the country.

• Sponsored by the Alexander Turnbull Library

• 20 Million frames of newspapers microfilmed since 1983 by the ATL.

• Older papers given priority because of their ‘at risk’ status from a conservation point of view.

• ATL estimates there are 3-4 million ‘at risk’ pages of newspapers within in New Zealand.

• ‘At risk’ papers are defined as being those papers not held in a Library or Archive.

• It is estimated that it will take 5-6 years to complete microfilming of ‘at risk’ papers at current rate. It took Papers Past 7 years to digitise 3% of the National Library’s collection.

• Microfilming was suspended in 2007 for budgetary reasons, was picked up again in July of this year but may be suspended again next year for the same reasons.

Issues:

• Is it sensible to continuing microfilming in an age of digitisation? Microfilm is still the preferred preservation medium because of its proven track record as a stable, analogue and accessible medium. Digital by comparison is still inherently unstable and unproven beyond a very short time frame.

• Microfilm produced from 1953 to 1977 is not to archival standard, original papers of some of these not longer exist.

• Even if current funding levels can be maintained it would take up to 10 years to complete all retrospective microfilming at the ATL alone.

• Need a National Investment in microfilming services. There is only one agency in New Zealand that can microfilm to a preservation standard and they need consistent business to survive. ATL will suspend its m/f activity in 2009 with its move to temporary premises. This may not start up again which makes our dependence on microfilm and copy services thought external providers even more critical. To this end we need to create digitisation programmes not individual projects delivered on an ad-hoc basis.

• Microfilm is not as attractive to funders as digitisation, although one can then digitise from the microfilm.

• The technology for digitising early newspapers is hugely expensive, compared to digitising other types of material – requires large capital investment.

• Will Google digitise all the world’s newspapers? How will this effect us?

• Copyright with regards to Newspapers pre ‘public domain’ fraught with difficulties.

• Solutions:

• We need a national digitisation plan for New Zealand newspapers. An advisory group may be formed to help facilitate this.

• We will need a multi-decade programme to address the preservation issues.

National Digital Forum, 26-27 November 2008, Owen G Glen Building University of Auckland.

George Oates, Flickr

• Institutions need to release content, learn to let go of the control of content.

• On flickr authenticity ‘not such as issue’ for users.

• Flickr offers much ‘2.0’ functionality e.g. ability to create ones own browse structures and mash-ups and user defined description through ‘tag clouds’.

Kathy Sheet, Copyright Licensing Ltd and Dr. Paul Gerhert C.E.O. of the Archives for Creativity:

Paul Gerhert:

• What should be the role of copyright collectives such as ‘Creative Commons’?

• We need to find better ways to balance the right of creators to be remunerated with the rights of users to access material.

• Digitisation affects the core of copyright law. Digitisation essentially equals mass reproduction and loss of control of content.

• Basic copyright arrangements remain static in the face of technological change. e.g.:

Who is the Creator of a work? This used to be easily defined but today it could be a variety of creators/contributors.

Content of broadcast programmes traditionally cleared for use 1 or 2 times. In the age of constant online access this no longer cuts the mustard.

Complexity of clearing copyright hurdles for online use tremendous.

• Are our business models out of date?

Kathy Sheet

• Digitisation has produced a ‘transformative use of content’. Digital content considered as belonging to the community and should be accessed for free.

• Traditional copyright model “One to the many” new copyright expectations “sharing content”.

• Public expectation is that all barriers will fall in the face of ‘Youtube’.

• 9000 hours of video/audio uploaded a day to Youtube. 90% of it original content.

• By 2010 it is expected the information available on the net will double every 11 hours. By 2020 this is expected to be 11 seconds.

• Potentially all audio/visual content ever made will be accessible.

• Intellectual property rules fail in the face of this.

• Digital replication of moving images is what printing was to books.

Lewis Brown and Virginia Gow, Digital New Zealand

• Being digital implies the ability of make copies in order that users can create new things.
•
“If the only way a library can offer an Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity in a way that has never been seen before …”
Lawrence Lessig

• Digital NZ has issues with the phase “only available for private research etc” as a limiter on web pages. Is this true? Should this even been attached to public domain images?

• We need to be serious about access, and not digitise for the sake of it.

• We must expect users to copy and create new things.

• We should take a pro-active approach in making content available and not get caught up worrying about rights issues, basically put something up and have procedures for taking it down if someone objects. We are too risk adverse.

• Copyright statements invariably say what you can’t do with content, not what you can do.

• It is easy to see copyright as only protecting the rights of the creator, but it also protects the rights of users. We block those rights by making content hard to copy and re-use.

• Suggest the phase ‘no known copyright restrictions’ to help users out.

• If you have any doubt regarding releasing control of material don’t digitise it. (seems a bit contradictory to early statements).

• What does ‘access’ mean? Is it viewing only or is re-mixing also a right?

• Points from the audience: acknowledgment and attributions are important; consideration of donor rights apart from copyright law are essential. This may limit the kind of use that is able to be made of material.

Grahame Austin, University of Arizona “What is public about public domain? Is copyright’s flipside a flop”?

• Copyright should be owned by practitioners not lawyers

• Copyright has been swept up in a political movement. Antagonism towards copyright is at a all time high (as evidence by many previous speakers) ideas such as “The Commons”, “Public Domain”, “Free culture”.

• Copyright law is still based around private property rights.

• To a degree a focus on copyright is a red herring. Copyright law is a tiny part of the arrangements that govern relationships with clients, donors and stakeholders.

• Contractual obligations with donors via deposit agreements etc. trump copyright considerations.

• Are “mash-ups” really “smash-ups” should users have the right to do whatever they want with material?

• Are we experiencing an amateurisation of creativity? Is there still space in society for the income dependant creator? How will creators continue to pay the rent in a “free culture”?

• Adversaries say that copyright is bad because it suppresses speech. However copyright has always been designed to suppress speech and thus create artificial scarcity through which creators can make a buck.

• Donor restrictions: these are not a ‘freedom of speech’ problem either. Restrictions on access may serve the vibrancy of collections/culture better than not having restrictions at all if this means that donors will not give institutions material.

• It is important to think about access in a holistic sense, it is not just about copyright it is also about:

Relationships with donors and stakeholders

Cultural sensitivities

• We must not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach to rights management issues.