We are still wrangling over our photo reproduction policies: I want to see
more items scanned and less photocopied and I want to charge a nominal $1 or
so for the scan. We make a little more and we get a scan for future use. The
patron also gets a better quality image. We do reproduce photographs for a
fee: generally $20 for an 8"x10" reproduction. For other items like maps and
such, we charge $25 plus the cost of the copy which can be cheap for a black
and white copy or really expensive for a color copy.
I do not encourage the use of personal scanners, etc., by patrons to copy
items from our collection. Exceptions are sometimes made. The last time was
in cooperation with the editors and publisher of photo history of our
county. In exchange for our cooperation and access to our collection, we get
a cut of each book sold.
The only exceptions I will allow for scanning/photographing items in our
reference/archival collections is when a researcher needs a copy of an image
that cannot otherwise be reproduced. More often than not this means
oversized or fragile items that cannot be photocopied well or at all. We
have real estate maps and Sanborn insurance maps that cannot be copied by
any means except for digital imaging or photography. We currently do not
charge patrons to make their own images, but we do limit the number of
images a patron can make from these sources.

Scott D. Peters
Research Director/Archivist
Ocean County Historical Society
26 Hadley Ave., P.O. Box 2191
Toms River, NJ 08754-2191
(732) 341-1880
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]

"Telling the Stories of Ocean County"

Historically Speaking
ALHFAM -FPIPN vice-chair for trivia, errata and miscellany
[log in to unmask]

"The ordinary distinctions in society are often vague, and imply no just
pre-eminence: rank and titles are
adventitious things and instead of designating merit or virtue, are
frequently the baubles of imbecility, or
the sparkling decorations of meretricious pageantry"

William Griffith, on behalf, and by order of the New-Jersey Society for
promoting the gradual Abolition
of Slavery, Twelfth Month (December) 20th, 1803
----- Original Message -----
From: "David E. Haberstich" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Documentaries - use of your collections - any policies?


> In a message dated 02-01-28 11:18:11 EST, Jill Dixon wrote:
>
> << However, he is making a documentary and wants to bring his cameraman to
>  video the docs & photos - normally to get a color copy of a photograph,
>  we charge and to make copies of anything we charge a fee. If people
>  further want to use a copy of a photograph from our collection in a
>  publication, there are additional fees and requirements for crediting
>  our museum. >>
>
> Please pardon my delayed reaction to the questions in the above post--but
I
> often wait to see if someone else responds before I wade in.  I don't
recall
> seeing a comprehensive reply, so I'll try it.
>
> There are at least two important issues involved when someone wants to do
> their own photography of your collection material on your premises: (1)
> Sometimes their whole objective in doing so is to save money by getting
> around or eliminating your usual photographic fees.  This may be
reasonable
> in the case of a non-profit scholar with a small budget, but when a
> commercial user makes such a request, it rubs me the wrong way.  (2)
Whether
> the requester is non-profit or commercial, permitting such "outside"
> photography means that you are relinquishing a certain amount of control
over
> the use of your collection, and you ought to think hard about the
> implications.  Outside photographers who walk away with negatives,
> transparencies, or digital files of your collection are less subject to
your
> oversight than if they purchased (or rented) your copies of your material.
> Generally, the institution should retain as much control over the
production
> and use of images of its collection items as possible.  It isn't just a
> question of money--when the users make their own copies, you can't monitor
> proper captioning, identification, etc.  I was once startled to discover
in a
> university slide library a commercially made copy of a unique item from
our
> collection.  Obviously the slide had been made many years earlier, and the
> caption had an error and there was no attribution as to source.  This is a
> disservice to the user, who would have no way of knowing the original
source.
>  While the slide might have been made from an authorized, museum-supplied
> copy, it seems to me that by allowing an outside photographer to make his
own
> copy, the likelihood of losing data is increased substantially.  If you
sell
> copies for study purposes, but mark them with a statement that
reproduction
> requires your permission, at least you have some hope of controlling or
> monitoring usage by responsible parties.
>
> Our museum has a policy of requiring approval by the public affairs office
> before an outside photographer gets access to collection material, and an
> "access" fee may be imposed on commercial entities.  This fee offsets
savings
> gained by not paying for museum-produced copies.  (I'm afraid this
procedure
> is not always consistently followed, but at least the mechanism is in
place.)
>  The first time I became aware of the existence of this policy, I had
begun
> to allow a picture researcher to make slides of photographs and graphics
in
> our holdings, and had the uneasy feeling that he was getting unfair access
to
> large quantities of material.  When I alerted the public affairs office,
they
> proposed a contract to him which contained a fee that he didn't want to
pay,
> so he stopped copying.  I then found that his real objective was to amass
a
> large file of cheap copies which he could use on a speculative basis to
> market book ideas to publishers, and I was relieved that we had found a
way
> to short-circuit his scheme.  Allowing him to walk away with very
inexpensive
> copies of large quantities of material would have been like a gold mine
for
> him, and would have been fundamentally unfair to those who must pay for
> copies through normal channels and aren't in a position to hire a
> photographer or do their own work.
>
> We try to be flexible in our approach to this procedure.  Occasionally
there
> are good reasons to permit outside photography, and you may need to
consider
> possible exceptions to the rule (bearing in mind the control issue).  Some
> staff think it's just easier to allow outside photography rather than
> monitoring pay orders, schlepping and overseeing your stuff through your
> photo lab, etc., but to me the most important issue is adequate control
over
> the publication of your material, with proper identification, etc.  I
think
> permitting outside photography of your collections needs to be the
> exception--with appropriate justification--rather than the rule.
>
> We usually reject requests from people who want to bring in their own
> scanners to scan flat materials in our collection.  We'll do it for you,
> thank you.  And we'll do our best to track how our scans are used.
>
> Hope this helps, as they say.
>
> David Haberstich
>

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).