Discussion of readings for session 7: reusing heritage data about sunoikisisdc-2021-2022

[molmay]

I really enjoyed the Apollo article because I rather unexpectedly found the discussion of copyright law really interesting (no offence to the study of law, I say this because I dropped out of a law degree...). It really changed how I think about copyright, specifically that 'a claim to copyright is disruptive. It holds back creativity, innovation and knowledge generation' as I had always understood copyright in a very generic and limited way to be a concept that protected both the rights of a creator and their creativity. The fact that some institutions are in fact abusing the system to take advantage of other people's creations essentially for their own gain seems to fly in the face of the most fundamental purpose of copyright. I have coincidentally been reading a bit recently about digital spaces such as metaverses and concerns that they could be used for purposes entirely antithetical to their original design, so this discussion of how copyright can be cited by online institutions in a way that almost subverts what perhaps would expect a copyright to stand for and protect really resonated!

[Ghilaevansky]

The McCarthy article (2020) discusses the issues of copyright in museums and images. "The European Commission has stated that users ‘will be completely free to share copies of paintings, sculptures and other works of art in the public domain with full legal certainty’. The UK is not required to implement the directive and its government has no plans to do so." The current digital landscape has an overwhelming amount of free images, so maintaining copyright can seem an impossible task.

The Wallace (2019) article made me think deeper about intellectual property rights in regard to cultural heritage. I found it interesting how "The outcomes co-developed through such an opportunity will aid other governments and institutions attempting to tackle similar long overdue restitution initiatives."

[lewis-rhiannon]

Summary of Mathilde Pavis & Andrea Wallace. (2019). "Response to the 2018 Sarr-Savoy Report: Statement on Intellectual Property Rights and Open Access relevant to the digitisation and restitution of African Cultural Heritage and associated materials".

The response here is to the Sarr-Savoy 2018 report which was commissioned by French President Emmanuel Macron, it looks at legal framework for restitution of colonial artefacts at the time publicly owned by France. This 2019 article responds to the digital recommendations of Sarr-Savoy report, namely those for digitisation, as Pavis and Wallace outline this was underdeveloped as the report focused on physical restitution of African material cultural heritage. The authors introduce IP’s (intellectual property) relationship to African cultural heritage artefacts in this context, and in line with spirit of the report develop what good restitution practice could look like for these artefacts if/when digitised. They are against blanket open access and digitisation, instead advocating for collaboration with existing African digitisation projects and a ‘slow digitisation’ approach generally. They set out public domain and open access here as western constructs and advise against replicating historical annexation through digitation. Overall, they advocate for: control of representation by those whose cultural heritage is being represented, not creating double standards by only making these artefacts open access when open access GLAM is not yet widespread in France, non-conditional restitution, and finally when decolonizing French institutions this be inclusive of archival and digital collections. The Sarr-Savoy Report has longstanding implications and therefore Pavis and Wallace’s response advocates for thorough consideration of digitised cultural heritage artefacts.

[JasNewtonRae]

Both articles were extremely interesting. Molly highlights in her comment a part of the Apollo article I too found interesting - how museums and other institutions are using copyright in a way that sort of goes against its whole creation. I also found it greatly interesting in the Pavis and Wallace argument where it was put forward the double standards of making the African collections have to be digitized but holding no such need for the French ones to be.

[ellie919]

The articles at first seem to be presenting opposing viewpoints: the one advocating for open access to collections and the other against open access to certain collections. However, both demonstrate the importance of digital heritage and who allows whom to access it. The Pavis & Wallace article was thought-provoking in the way that it showed that restitution of African Cultural Heritage was a hollow gesture if the French government still dictates access to digitisation of the collections, creating a double standard, not truly returning full control over the collections to the communities of origin, and showing a disregard towards the significance of digital heritage.

[lettychardon]

A significant point of the McCarthy and Wallace article is the lack of open-access policies in some of the most important and recognised museums and galleries in Britain. This fact is highlighted as incompatible with the purpose of these institutions - if a museum is established to diffuse knowledge and educate the general public, why would its digitised collections not be readily available to all online? It was particularly interesting to learn that very little revenue is generated by copyright fees and the loss of these would be made up for by the increased visibility that comes with a transition to open-access. As stated in the article, users will just use an unofficial photo instead of that of the museum if need be! Based on the arguments presented, it seems strange that institutions such as the British Museum and V&A have not been faster in making their collections open-access!