Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Research Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CleanUrl: research Description A description of the content of the resource or work Entries in this section of the Copyright Cortex include both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed research, exploring the law of copyright and its effects on policy and practice in a variety of cultural heritage contexts. From managing the risks associated with making orphan works available online to claiming copyright in digital surrogates of public domain works, this section catalogues data, evidence, and commentary across a wide range of topics. If you have any recommendations for material that should feature in this section of the Copyright Cortex please do let us know. You can contact us at: <a href="mailto:info@copyrightcortex.org">info@copyrightcortex.org</a> Report URL https://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/cippm/files/2020/06/EnDOW-Report-3.pdf Pages (from-to) 1-62 Institution <a href="https://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/cippm/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CIPPM, Bournemouth University</a> <a href="https://www.create.ac.uk/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CREATe, University of Glasgow</a> <a href="https://www.ivir.nl/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">IViR, University of Amsterdam</a> <a href="https://www.unibocconi.eu/wps/wcm/connect/bocconi/sitopubblico_en/navigation+tree/home/faculty+and+research/research/research+centers/ask_edauthor5+2008+07+21+10+38" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">ASK, Boconni University of Milan</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource EnDOW Report 3: Current Best Practices among Cultural Heritage Institutions when Dealing with Copyright Orphan Works and Analysis of Crowdsourcing Options Description A description of the content of the resource or work The final EnDOW Report examines the different approaches that cultural heritage institutions in the UK, Netherlands and Italy have taken to orphan works identified in their collections, and explores crowd-sourcing as a potential solution to the challenges presented by diligent search. The report finds a range of practice, from strict compliance to risk-based approaches inside and outside the law of copyright, and a willingness to explore crowd-sourcing from some institutions. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Victoria Stobo Kris Erickson Aura Bertoni Flavia Guerrieri Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018-05-01 Abstract A summary of the resource. The purpose of this study is to establish the current state of best practices among Cultural Heritage Institutions (CHIs) when dealing with in-copyright orphan works in three countries: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Italy. A baseline understanding of current practice will provide a benchmark, against which crowdsourcing (or any other proposal) to address the challenge posed by orphan works, can be evaluated. The research team used a purposive sample to approach the ‘Big 3’ national libraries and film archives in each country, typically including the national library, the national archive and the national film archive. The researchers also aimed to include at least one institution from each jurisdiction that had used the EUIPO database, and one institution that digitized orphan works but opted not to use the database. 15 CHIs are included in the study. A semistructured interview format was used to gather qualitative and quantitative data about the CHIs, their collections, their diligent search processes, the results rights clearance for specific digitization projects, their thoughts on the potential of crowd-sourcing as a solution, and their views on the current legislative framework. Even within a small sample of institutions, there is wide variance in the level of readiness to engage with orphan works across the CHI sector, from expert-level engagement and high-volume use of the EU IPO database, through CHIs who actively avoid digitizing orphan works, to those who digitize orphan works and make them available online on a risk-assessed basis, without using the available legal mechanisms. Rights clearance remains expensive and ranges considerably depending on the nature of the work and the approach taken by the institution. There is continued uncertainty regarding the scope of the Directive and the diligent search requirements, and views on these uncertainties differ across institutions. This suggests that even where high levels of expertise are available, when interpretation of the legislation diverges, different institutions will implement the legislation in different ways, and best practices will diverge accordingly. The interview data shows that the decision to engage with the EU exception or, in the case of the UK, with the Orphan Works Licensing Scheme (OWLS), was frequently expressed as an economic calculus. To succeed, crowdsourcing must do two things: firstly, offer increased benefits to institutions beyond current practices, and secondly, avoid imposing unreasonable knowledge or integration costs on the institutions involved. Readiness to engage in crowdsourcing diligent search is influenced by these economic factors, but also partially by reputational concerns. Some respondents voiced scepticism that crowd-generated diligent searches would adequately withstand external scrutiny, and preferred to maintain control over decisions about orphan work status for that reason. However, other participants responded positively to the concept, suggesting potential volunteers, and emphasising the positive aspects of rights research and the impact it can have in CHIs and on users. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://diligentsearch.eu/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">EnDOW Project</a> Language A language of the resource ENG Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CleanUrl: endow-report-3-current-best-practices-among-cultural-heritage-institutions-when-dealing-with-copyright-orphan-works-analysis-of-crowdsourcing-options Copyright Cortex Fields Extra CC fields for copyright information Visual Date Date of creation or availability of the resource that is shown to users. To be formatted as follows: 2017 January 7 2018 May 1 Jurisdiction United Kingdom The Netherlands Italy European Union Size Details about the size of the resource (can be Bytes, Pages or Duration, depending on item type.) 820 KB 62 pp. Copyright Information Information about the copyright status of the record. In Copyright Keywords A selection of keywords that pertain to the article attached. orphan works rights clearance mass digitisation exceptions and limitations copyright reform crowdsourcing cultural heritage diligent search EnDOW Project EU Orphan Works Directive