LOT 49: MOVING IMAGES

Jennifer MOHAN
OCTOBER 2008

SUPPORTED BY THE DIGITAL LIBRARY FEDERATION

ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE

It is clear that many obstacles stand in the way of moving forward with digitization
projects, limiting access to moving image collections. These obstacles may seem
overwhelming and they often bleed into one another—projects cannot be launched
without comprehensive knowledge of the collection, requiring time and staff, which in
turn requires money, a scarce resource in nearly all the archives that participated in the
survey.

Changes in the modes of distribution

In the larger media world, it would seem as though mass digitization is just around the
corner with unlimited financing. In the last four years, the industry of online media has
grown to be a dynamic and unpredictable force. When I wrote my thesis on the video on-
demand industry in 2005 and 2006, the hot buzz phrases were “user-generated content”
and “social networking.” Due to the mass pirating of music and movies via file-sharing
software systems such as BitTorrent, eDonkey and Limewire, the public and film studios
alike awoke to not only the chaotic environment created by file-sharers and hackers, but
to the genuine desire on the part of individuals to access motion content. Building digital
libraries of motion content could permit materials to be downloaded and shared. It will
not happen overnight but we must prepare ourselves for the inevitable development of the
online video industry that will seek out more unique materials and collections as the
industry continues to grow.

I found the burgeoning industry of online media to be an extremely exciting and

progressive time in the advancement of digital media libraries. I realized that the public
would acquire, legally or otherwise, products of entertainment if established media
companies would not provide them. The major studios refused to offer digital film
downloads, as did the major record labels, and they saw these potential industries
developed by hackers and technologists quickly spiraling into a unregulated phenomenon
that could not be controlled by them or any other legislative power.

The exciting part is that the demand is there; there seems to be an insatiable appetite for
unique content. However, the risks involved in shrugging off illegal downloading have
devastating consequences for independent producers of materials. Independent producers
have smaller budgets; expenses are often paid by the artists themselves, or if they are
lucky, with the aid of grants. Having been to film schools for both my BA and MA, I
know quite a few filmmakers who have maxed out credit cards in order to finance their
work. For independent films to be successful, they must generate enough revenue to
cover the expenses of creation and provide start-up funding for the filmmaker’s future
endeavors.

Independent filmmakers are the ones perhaps poised to lose the most in these debates.
The suggested revenues lost by studios to illegal downloads run anywhere from $1 billion
to $3 billion, although it is unknown to me how these figures are calculated. However,
the film industry remains a multi-billion dollar industry that can take in massive amounts
of money depending on the appeal of the films released. The amount of money bleeding
from them is substantial and truly a means for concern, but the industry is not teetering
on the brink of extinction as some may presume.

For independent producers, the scenario is quite different. They do not have billion dollar
revenues to keep their creative wheels greased. The revenue streams that digital
distributions can open up for independent producers can connect them with audiences
that previously had little chance of viewing their work, gaining them greater exposure.

Recovering costs
For archives, digital distribution can be a revolutionary step in allowing the world access
to their enormous and invaluable collections. Some suggest that real revenue cannot be
generated by archival material, but archives possess content that is of crucial importance
to researchers and scholars around the world, and the ease of being able to download
materials instead of traveling to various institutions easily justifies the price of the
download. It is naïve to expect institutions to invest in digitizing archival materials and to
allow them to be downloaded for free. They may not generate an enormous amount of
money, but they may be able to recover the costs and perhaps subsidize some other
necessary activities.

Many large institutions view archives not as money-makers but as money drainers, but
they do contribute the prestige of their collections and the impact they make on the work
of researchers and scholars. The costs involved with running an archive are large.
Allowing the collections to generate some income would be a significant step in altering
the perception of archives as a financial black hole.

Identifying healthy and unhealthy archives

What determines a healthy archive and what determines one in need of help? The
condition of the archive can be determined by how much work it will take to get the
collections to a point where they can be digitized. Healthy archives generally have
collections in cold storage, an on-site conservator or an off-site conservation/transfer
provider, adequate staff, enough resources for new materials such as acid-free folders,
film canisters, etc. Proper cataloging exists, as does clear copyright and other rights
information for a majority of their holdings. It does not mean that all of their materials
must be in the public domain; it simply means that researchers can find ownership
information quickly and that information is accurate.
Unhealthy archives generally have poor storage, incomplete or unknown information
regarding the overall condition of their collections, little or no funds for preservation and
staff, little or no information regarding copyright or other rights information, etc. They
usually have smaller collections that may be niche collections of very specific interest to
smaller groups of people. Because these issues make engagements with private
companies more difficult, these archives have little chance to be funded for digitization.

Internal Challenges
Another reality for digitization projects is that they are reliant on staff that are often
overwhelmed and over-stretched. For example, at some prominent museums, there is
only one archivist for an entire AV department, usually responsible for a variety of
workflow and independent activities, including processing, cataloguing, preservation
assessments and repairs, assisting researchers, and writing grants. These assignments
leave little time for other projects. Private money would be needed to provide assistance
in these cases, as institutions often have inadequate time or resources to redirect
themselves.

The necessary keystone of any digitization project is solid cataloguing. However, many
experienced staff have no junior staff behind them to impart their knowledge to and
ultimately take their place. A vast quantity of collections experience will be lost when
senior archivists depart these institutions. Senior archivists have crucial knowledge of
uncatalogued moving images, materials that may be found in other parts of the collection,
and materials needed by scholars and researchers. Their departures, coupled with the
absence of replacements, will develop into a loss for researchers, students, and scholars
who rely on archivists and collections specialists to guide them in the right direction. No
education obtained through classroom instruction, no matter how infused it is with real-
world contacts, can replace what senior archivists know about their collections through
years of dedicated work.

Niche Offerings
We do not really know what moving images the public will be interested in seeing
because they have never been offered the opportunity to view the vast majority of motion
materials. A smaller archive could have a collection that is extremely valuable for
research, but not know it. The size of the archive should not be a deterrent from making
investments into these collections.

As John Frow writes in his article, Archiving in the Digital Era, “…information is
structured as an open system with multiple users; its ‘value’ can be assessed only
retrospectively in relation to its contexts of use.” No one can say for sure that certain
collections are valueless because they have never been offered to the public. The niche
genres and home movies we assume have no research or commercial value may prove to
be useful to researchers, filmmakers, or students. The idea that all materials have value is
the reasoning behind Chris Anderson’s book, The Long Tail, which generated a lot of
attention when published in 2005. The Long Tail suggests that a large quantity of niche
products can generate significant revenue in relation to the smaller number of
blockbusters and bestsellers. If this theory is true -- and Anderson provides compelling
data from his research into both Netflix and Amazon.com -- then some revenue
generation can be expected from niche, non-commercial collections.

Analog Orphans
Much has been written about the coming age where everything will be in digital form,
allowing us to send information across the globe, sharing information that had previously
been locked away in vaults. But in light of the current financial state in the archival
community, I can only wonder if only the wealthy archives will take part and I worry
about what will happen to smaller, poorer archives that cannot afford such activities.

According to the survey data, a majority of archives are not ready to even think about
digitization projects. They are overwhelmed with the enormous responsibility of
managing archives with little funding and a limited staff. The digital projects that are
being met with such enthusiasm by some in the archival community are often beyond
their reach.

Compounding the issue is that many of these materials have never been transferred from
their original format. Many collections still have materials 16 and 8mm film, U-matic
tape, and other formats subject to deterioration. Obviously, the more time that passes
without transferring them, the greater the risk that these materials will deteriorate to the
point where they can no longer be viewed.

Public-private agreements
Much has been written regarding public/private digitization agreements, and whether
they hold any hope for the future. Private companies may simply cherry-pick the biggest
archives with the best collections and leave smaller archives without any way to
participate in digital library building.

Most archives are under-funded and even the financial security of the larger and better-
known archives is not guaranteed. Massive projects to digitize entire collections of film
and video will probably not be achieved by grant funding and fundraisers. These projects
will likely be achieved through agreements with private companies and will only include
a handful of archives. It is not a solution for our community as a whole.

The problem with public-private arrangements with a single archive is that it benefits
prominent archives, while smaller, poorer archives continue struggling. It is fairly clear
why Google decided to begin their book digitizing with prestigious libraries: these rich
and enormous libraries had most of what a partner would want when launching a massive
project such as Google Books — a great selection of material, adequate supporting staff,
and a prestigious brand to ensure publicity. There is little doubt that if given the choice,
moving image digitization projects will mirror the book deals that preceded them. If this
trend continues, the split in the archival community will be based on finance and size —
leaving thousands of materials with no access by the larger audiences.
A possible solution is to accept private partnerships through group agreements, rather
than through singular contracts. The size of the group would be determined by the funder,
who would be obliged to include smaller archives.

Group funding is not the only answer for expanded digitization of archival materials, but
every avenue should be explored to come up with standard agreements that make sense
for all participants. Many archivists are wary of involving private corporations because
the corporations are not familiar or well versed in the issues and cultural aspects of the
archival community. We must prepare ourselves to work with groups, individuals, and
companies that may be unfamiliar with our concerns and may even have perceived us as
working toward opposite ends. Both public and private entities must have an open mind
and agree on contracts and alliances that are mutually beneficial.

The Impermanence of the Future

Another reason to link archives with private corporations is the unpredictable nature of
digital projects themselves. Transferring and encoding analog materials to digital files
requires not only labor and financial investment, but archivists must also be concerned
with the ever-changing digital formats that are constantly being created. Just as analog
materials must be transferred to newer and more stable formats, digital collections face a
similar future. As Kenneth Thibodeau writes in his article, Building the Archives of the
Future, “Any system, conceived as a final solution, even if it solved all of the known and
knowable problems of obsolescence and fragile media, would itself inevitably become
obsolete in what, from an archival perspective, would be a relatively short period of time.
Furthermore, probably the only valid prediction about the future of information
technology is that it will continue to change. Therefore, the solution to the challenge of
digital preservation must incorporate the capability to accommodate and incorporate
changing technology and unforeseeable products of that technology … Similarly, we
must anticipate that in the future there will be improved options available for ingest,
preservation, and archives management as well as access.”

In light of this, it is important to stress that digitization of materials is not an archival or

preservation solution—it is simply a huge step forward in terms of providing access to
archival collections. But as these digital formats change, so must our strategies for
migrating them, and again, finding the resources to achieve this. Many archivists who
participated in the survey stated that they were uneasy about launching digital projects
because a set digital format standard has not been reached and even it is was, uncertainty
must persist of its longevity.

For private-public relationships to work there need to be both security and incentives for
both sides. For archives, certain criteria need to be met or discussed before deals can be
culminated. These include:

• Ownership and control of any digital copies produced for them

• Only trained film and video specialists to handle originals and fragile materials
• The ability to chose a transfer and digitization production house
• Allowance for the re-formatting and transfer of digital files to newer formats
 • The ability to share digital copies with other archives
• Assistance with the labor and finances involved in copyright clearance
• The right to a certain percentage of revenue.
For private companies, their investments into the archival community must also be
justified. This is largely an unknown investment field to them and significant investments
in “non-commercial” collections can be both risky and unnerving. Therefore, they also
seek incentives to enter such agreements:

• The right to a certain percentage of revenue.

• Consideration of a portion of the downloading and streaming revenues from each
library that has acquired a copy of a film or video the firm has digitized. For
example, if Microsoft pays for the digitizing of a collection, that collection may
be available for download or stream on multiple online media serving sites.
However, each time the film is downloaded or streamed, Microsoft might receive
a percentage of the revenue because they made the digitization investment.

• The first right of refusal to digitize new material from a collection with which
they have an established agreement. For example, if Archive A agreed to let a
private company digitize 50% of their collection, and then later decided to seek a
partner to digitize the remainder, the original private partner might have the first
right of refusal unless the archive had actionable complaints with the company's
prior conduct or performance.

CONCLUSION

Contracts with private companies are in their infancy and will be refined and restructured
as new relationships emerge. I am confident that contracts with private companies will be
vastly improved as they become more engaged in the archival culture and community. A
good place to start meaningful discussion between archives and private firms would be at
AMIA and other moving image conferences dedicated to discussion or current archival
issues. Beyond highlighting problems, it would also give companies a glimpse into the
unparalleled media collections presented at these conferences. As they continue to pour
money into new media and online video ventures, I believe archives should be making
every attempt to present ourselves as a viable and intelligent choice for such investments.

Admittedly this is a short essay for such an enormous topic. The topics covered here have
been addressed with only broad strokes. However, I firmly believe that our challenge and
responsibility is to begin suggesting new approaches to these problems, regardless of how
far-fetched and unlikely they sound.
 MOVING IMAGE ARCHIVE DIGITIZATION: A BILL OF RIGHTS

1. Archive will have the right to control digital copies of their works, including
distribution of the digital copy to other institutions aligned with principles of
cultural and educational access. Although digital materials may or may not be
released for commercial purposes by these institutions, they should possess the
ability to impose restraints against indiscriminate reproduction analogous to print
materials, such as the conventions associated with inter-library lending. As long
as the receiving institution uses the digital copy for on-premise library sharing,
students, librarians, researchers, and other patrons should be able to use a digital
copy freely.

2. To avoid "cherry picking", a library or archive should be able to require the

digitization of a portion of its collection that is perceived to have low potential
commercial value, alongside the commercial partner's preferred materials. Such
materials may be considered “low-value” because of their preservation condition,
lack of proper metadata or cataloguing records that make them difficult to find
within the collection, potential obsolete format. Although the percent of this kind
of materials can be negotiated by each individual partnership, 10% of overall
materials might be a good number.

3. An agreement cannot demand an archive surrender copyright control.

4. An archive has full control over digital copies of public domain materials.

5. An agreement cannot demand an archive agree to certain storage conditions.

6. Archives have the right to request digital copies on multiple formats.

7. Archives have the right to post public domain materials on their website for
download and online access.

8. Archives have the right to reject any suggested digitization lab.

9. Archives have the right to require preservation and conservation experience for
any employee of a private company that might be directly working with archival
materials. Considerate treatment of archival copies is essential, and the archive
has the right to insist that all digitization and transferring is done by people who
are aware of preservation standards and procedures.

10. No digitization or transferring should be done without a preservation assessment

of materials. Damage, preservation concerns and deterioration must be properly
documented. If the archive does not have the time or resources to provide one, the
private company will provide adequate financial support and/or personnel.
11. An archive has the right to negotiate any a time frame for the project.

12. An archive has the right to have their digital collections migrated to newer or
more persistent formats, with staffing and financial support supported by the
private partner.