>Date:         Mon, 5 Dec 1994 21:51:26 -0500
>Reply-To:     Museum discussion list
><[log in to unmask]>
>Sender:       Museum discussion list
><[log in to unmask]>
>From:         [log in to unmask]
>Subject:      Re: Copyright
>To:           Multiple recipients of list MUSEUM-L
><[log in to unmask]>
>
>from Robin Murphy---
>
>>I've been wondering how the Getty project fits into this. Seems as
>>though the standards are already set and we are seeing a split
>>forming between academic and public education use of museum
>>resources.
>
>I'm not sure what Robin means "seems as though the standards are already
>set".  Standards for what?  For leasing or selling rights to the use of
>museum images to commerical concerns (Continuum, Luna, etc.)?  As Tara
>Robinson said in an earlier posting, most museums know not to sell
>exclusive rights.  There are a number of good articles on the legal issues,
>notably, in the 1993 ICHIM (International Conference on Hypermedia and
>Interactivity in Museums) proceedings, in the 1994 ALI-ABA (Legal Issues in
>Museum Management) proceedings, and in Spectra (fall 1993, v. 21 No. 2,
>and, spring 1994, v.21 No.4).
 
As Suzanne says, the standards are far from being set. There are still many
issues which the cultural heritage community must resolve for itself. Sure,
there are things, particularly related to technical image file formats,
that we will not be developing - nor should we be, as these are the
province of particular specialists. That said, however, the museum
community needs to look critically at available formats to see where they
meet our needs, and where they do not. If we can specify particular needs,
we may be able to influence technological developments.
 
One specific area were we need to pay attention, is the technical
description of an image file. I am not speaking about the description of
the *content* of an image - which should be described according to
discipline specific standards - such as the AITF _Categories for the
Description of Works of Art_ - or parallel initiatives from organizations
such as the Association for Systematics Collections. There are separate
issues related to the management of image files as documents that are
critical to their long-term viability. For example, how many of us are
recording the kind of scanner that was used to create our digital images?
This is going to be critical information in the future, as technology
develops and it becomes possible to correct for biases in various scanners,
and move images to a neutral colour space. Equally important, is recording
the source of a digital image - whether it came from a 35mm slide, or a 4x5
transparency has an important effect on the amount of information there was
to scan in the first place. Then there is information about the resolution
and dynamic range of the digital image itself. Some of this information is
recorded in an image file header - some of it is now being managed in
linked database records.
 
We need to establish what information should always travel with an image
file, and develop formats to ensure that this is embedded within a header,
rather than  stored in a database record, which could be separated from the
image that it documents.
 
These issues were the subject of a session Howard Besser and I ran at the
recent meetings of the Coalition for Networked Information. [I'll post our
handouts in a subsequent message - anyone who is interested in working on
this problem, please contact me.] Working through these questions, in an
interdisciplinary forum, is one of the items on the agenda of the Imaging
Initiative.
 
Another place where the museum community needs to play an active role in
setting standards related to imaging is in the area of image quality. We
use different kinds of images for different purposes - but how much
information is required for what function? The Imaging Initative is now
developing a research project that will look at users of images, the uses
they make of visual materials, and the quality they require. Our goal is to
develop a matrix of users, uses and quality levels that can be used to
evaluate digital imaging technologies. I'd be very interested in hearing
from people who would like to participate in that study, or who may be
willing to host a study session themselves.
>
>Also, we should all be taking a careful look at the two MUSE projects.  One
>has to do with a CDROM licensing agreement; the other, a carefully
>shepherded project between museums and colleges/universities which enables
>the participating universities to use selected images from participating
>museums.   We should be hearing more about the success of the latter
>project in the near future.  With respect to the former, the contract has
>been given a very close reading by a respected member of the SI legal team.
>  It was also discussed at the last MCN meeting in Washington.
>
>Suzanne Quigley
>Detroit Institute of Arts
>[log in to unmask]
 
As the 'later' of her two examples, Suzanne is referring to the Museum
Educational Site Licensing Project  - a joint project of the Getty AHIP
Imaging Initative and Muse Educational Media, a New York based not-for
profit. It will bring together six universities and six museums to define
the terms and conditions for the educational use of museum images and
information on campus networks. We have just reviewed over 80 serious
applications for participation in this project, and will announce the
participants by the 15th of December. Anyone interested in playing the role
of observer, and staying in touch with these discussions, is welcome to
contact me. We will add you to our mailing list.
 
jennifer
J.Trant
Manager, Imaging Initiative
Getty Art History Information Program
[log in to unmask]   310-451-6381 [phone]  310-451-5570 [fax]
 
 
J. Trant
Manager, Imaging Initiative
Getty Art History Information Program
[log in to unmask]  phone: (310) 451-6381  fax: (310) 451-5570