R.A.R.I.N. ISABELLA STEWART GARDNER SURVEY
This survey represents the
compilation of Rights and Reproductions fees and policies of a
representative sample of 109 American museums, historical societies,
and archival libraries. We hope that it may be useful to other
museums in the process of restructuring their Rights and Reproductions
policies or as a reference for current industry standards.
The survey began as a device by which the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum could revise their Rights and Reproductions fees and policies to be in line with industry standards. Since little information was available on the industry standards of rights and reproductions policies, we decided to collect the information ourselves. We anticipated the highest quality, and rate of response by offering to assemble this report for those who participated.
We contacted 126 institutions listed in The Official Museum Directory of the American Association of Museums and asked the Photographic Services departments to forward to us any information about their current fees and policies. We chose accredited institutions so that we could be assured of a standard of practice in the participating institutions, and sought museums and institutions that represented not only all regions of the United States, but all types of art collections and institution categories.
We reviewed the responses
to our request and began sorting the information by type to ascertain
what types of information were most common amongst the responses.
This information was then classified and assigned variables. Fee
and pricing information was entered from the responses into variable
tables for further calculation. Information types that appeared
only once, or were dependent on individual institution policy
(New Photography fees, Postage and Handling, etc.) were eliminated
from the final results. The results of these calculations are
on the pages following.
Policy information and conditions for reproduction were processed
similarly. We recorded each new condition or policy, and later
grouped similar policies together under relevant headings. We
include them here for reference or consideration, but make no
recommendation as to the particular importance or effectiveness
of any of them.
One fact which quickly became
apparent during the survey was that this is an area where most
institutions are eager to receive information. Some of the information
included here may seem academic to those institutions with fully
developed rights and reproductions departments. The most basic
information is included in order for this report to have value
for the broadest range of respondents.
Of the 109 responses to
our request only 14 institutions had no formal rights and reproductions
policies. The formats and presentation of the responses varied
considerably, but three components appeared repeatedly.
Most museums had a single sheet on which all possible fees and prices appeared. The most standard of these presented materials purchase or lending information and reproduction categories in a matrix against Commercial, Non-Profit, and Scholar headings.
Some institutions separated
their commercial, non-profit, and scholar pricing schedules onto
separate sheets, presumably to avoid applicants arguing for lower
fees due to the nature of their work.
This is a form that institutions send to applicants in response to an initial request. On it, the applicant is asked to supply relevant names and addresses, the name of the work being requested, the purpose of the reproduction, the author, editor, and title of the reproduction, and print run, distribution, and extent of rights information (i.e., single language, multiple language, world rights). At this time, the applicant is asked to sign their agreement to abide by the institution's policies and conditions for reproduction printed most often on the back of the form.
The institution supplies credit line information and, typically, invoicing information on this form, and one copy is returned to the applicant upon approval.
Because this form supplies
all relevant publication information, asserts the institution's
conditions and policies, and serves as both the invoice and contract,
it is extremely useful in maintaining organized and standardized
fees and policies.
As mentioned above, institutions often print this on the back of the Application for Permission to Publish form, but it appears equally often as a separate entity. The institution can use this form to assert the required conditions and standards for reproduction, thus eliminating any confusion that may surround the institution's policies.
Patrick T. McMahon and Tamsen R. Snyder