From Outreach Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

An overview of papers, articles and books relevant to understands the issues related to GLAMs and their contribution to the Wikimedia projects.

Papers, articles and books[edit]

Digital collections online[edit]

Please refer to w:en:GLAM (industry sector)

  • Ardissono, L., Kuflik, T., & Petrelli, D. (2012). Personalization in cultural heritage: The road travelled and the one ahead. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1–2), 73–99.
  • Baca, M., Coburn, E., & Hubbard, S. (2008). Metadata and museum information. In P. Marty & K. B. Jones (Eds.), Museum informatics. People, information, and technology in museums (pp. 107–128). London: Routledge.
  • Bakhshi, H., & Throsby, D. (2012). New technologies in cultural institutions: Theory, evidence and policy implications. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18(2), 205–222.
  • Bearman, D. (2008). Representing museum knowledge. In P. Marty & K. B. Jones (Eds.), Museum informatics. People, information, and technology in museums (pp. 35–58). New York: Routledge.
  • Borowiecki, K.J. et al. (eds.) (2016). Cultural Heritage in a Changing World, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29544-2
  • Borowiecki, K. J., & Navarrete, T. (2015). Digitization of heritage collections as indicator of innovation. University of Southern Denmark, Discussion Papers on Business and Economics No. 14/2015. Retrieved December 7, 2015, from html.
  • Borowiecki, K. J., & Navarrete, T. (2016). Digitization of heritage collections as indicator of innovation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, forthcoming. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from
  • Bernstein, S. (2008). Where Do We Go From Here? Continuing with Web 2.0 at the Brooklyn Museum. In J. Trant & D. Bearman (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2008. Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved December 7, 2015, from
  • Caffo, R. (2014). Digital cultural heritage projects: Opportunities and future challenges. Procedia Computer Science, 38, 12–17.
  • Cameron, F. & S. Kenderdine (2007). Theorizing digital cultural heritage. A critical discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  • Clough, G. W. (2013). Best of both worlds: Museums, libraries, and archives in a digital age. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
  • Eschenfelder, K. R. and M. Caswell (2010). “Digital cultural collections in an age of reuse and remixes”. In: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 47.1, pp. 1–10. url: http : / / onlinelibrary . wiley . com / doi / 10 . 1002 / meet . 14504701045 / full (visited on 07/29/2014).
  • Flew, T., & Swift, A. (2013). Cultural policy. In R. Towse & C. Handke (Eds.), Handbook on the digital creative economy (pp. 155–161). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
  • Floch, J., & Jiang, S. (2015, September 22–24) Digital cultural experiences: A step towards understanding the public needs. Paper presented at the 6th International Workshop on Human- Computer Interaction, Tourism and Cultural Heritage—HCITOCH, Ravenna, Italy.
  • Floch, J., & Jiang, S. (2015) One place, many stories—Digital storytelling for cultural heritage discovery in the landscape. Paper presented at the Digital Heritage International Congress 2015, Granada, Spain, September 28–October 2, 2015.
  • Green, T. (2011). Giving It Away: Major Museums Wise Up about the Benefits of Copyright Free Art. Modern Painters (September): 34–35.
  • L. Hughes (Ed.) (2011). Evaluating and measuring the value, use and impact of digital collections (pp. 1–10). London: Facet Publishing.
  • Marty, P., & Jones, K. B. (2008). Museum informatics. People, information, and technology in museums. New York: Routledge.
  • Navarrete, T. (2013). Digital cultural heritage. In I. Rizzo & A. Mignosa (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of cultural heritage (pp. 251–271). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
  • Navarrete, T. (2013). Museums. In R. Towse & C. Handke (Eds.), Handbook on the digital creative economy (pp. 330–343). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
  • Navarrete, T., & Mackenzie Owen, J. (2011). Museum libraries: How digitization can enhance the value of the museum. Palabra Clave (La Plata), 1(1), 12–20.
  • Paolini, P., Mitroff Silvers, D., & Proctor, N. (2013). Technologies for cultural heritage. In I. Rizzo & A. Mignosa (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of cultural heritage (pp. 272–289). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
  • Parry, O., & Mauthner, N. (2004). Whose data are they anyway? Practical, legal and ethical issues in archiving qualitative research data. Sociology, 38, 139–152.
  • Peacock, A. (2006). The arts and economic policy. In V. A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of art and culture (Vol. 1, pp. 1124–1140). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  • Salaün, J.-M. (2013). The immeasurable economics of libraries. In I. Rizzo & A. Mignosa (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of cultural heritage (pp. 290–305). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
  • Saldana, I., Celaya, J., Merin, C., Gonzalez, C., Corbo, A., Portell, G., et al. (2013). Museums in the digital age. Retrieved 7, 2015, from
  • Stroeker, N., & Vogels, R. (2014). Survey report on digitisation in European cultural heritage institutions 2014. ENUMERATE thematic network, Panteia (NL). Retrieved from http://www. pdf
  • Tanner, S. (2012, October). Measuring the impact of digital resources: The balanced value impact model. London: King’s College London. Retrieved from impact.html* Youngs, G. (2013), Digital World: Connectivity, Creativity and Rights, Routledge.
  • Zeytlin, D. (2012). Anthropology in and of the archives: Possible futures and contingent pasts. Archives as anthropological surrogates. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 461–480. (Volume publication date October 2012) First published online as a Review in Advance on July 2, 2012. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145721
  • Harry Verwayen, Martijn Arnoldus, Peter B. Kaufman, The Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid: A Business Model Perspective on Open Metadata, Europeana White Paper No. 2.
User-generated content, crowdsourcing and community engagement for cultural heritage[edit]
Situation Positive Negative

By providing content online, GLAMs support a new engagement of their audience.

  • Professionals working in GLAMs want to preserve their control.
  • It is difficult to control content. And content is not certified by an expert.

  • User-generated content: people (not necessarily professionals or paid staff of institutions) produce content
  • Crowdsourcing: institutions receive the support of people who contribute to improve content.

  • Flanagan, M., Punjasthitkul, S., Seidman, M., Kaufman, G., & Carini, P. (2013). Citizen archivists at play: Game design for gathering metadata for cultural heritage. Institutions Proceedings of DiGRA 2013: DeFragging Game Studies.
  • Han, K., Shih, P. C., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2014a). Understanding local community attachment, engagement and social support networks mediated by mobile technology. Interacting with Computers 2014a.
  • Han, K., Shih, P. C., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2014b). Enhancing community awareness of and participation in local heritage with a mobile application. CSCW 2014-Mobile Apps for Enhancing Connectedness. pp. 1144–1155.
  • Oomen, J., & Aroyo, L. (2011). Crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage domain: Opportunities and challenges. In C & T ‘11 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, pp. 138 149. ACM digital library⁄42103354. 2103373
  • Oosterman, J., Bozzon, A. Houben, G.-J., Nottamkandath, A., Dijkshoorn, C., Aroyo, L., et al. Crowd vs. experts: Nichesourcing for knowledge intensive tasks in cultural heritage. international World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2), 2014. ACM 978-1-4503- 2744-2/14/04.
  • Owens, T. (2013). Digital cultural heritage and the crowd curator. The Museum Journal, 56(1), 121–130.
  • Paraschakis, D., & Friberger, M. G. (2014, May 27–31). Playful crowdsourcing of archival metadata through social networks. ASE big data/social com/cybersecurity Conference, Stanford University. ASE@360 Open Scientific Digital Library dle/123456789/45
  • Ridge, M. (2014), Crowdsourcing Our Cultural Heritage, Routledge.
  • Ridge, M. (2013). From tagging to theorizing: Deepening engagement with cultural heritage through crowdsourcing. The Museum Journal, 56(4), 435–450.
  • Tait, E., MacLeod, M., Beel, D., Wallace, C., Mellish, C., & Taylor, S. (2013). Linking to the past: An analysis of community digital heritage initiatives. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 65(6), 564–580. doi:10.1108/AP-05-2013-0039.
  • Serge Chaumier, Anne Krebs et Mélanie Roustan. Les visiteurs photographes. Un outil pour penser le musée, La Documentation française, pp.49-56, 2013, Musées-Mondes, 2110092122
  • Ateca-Amestoy, Victoria and Juan Prieto-Rodriguez (2013) ‘Forecasting accuracy of behavioural models for participation in the arts’ in European Journal of Operational Research. 229(1):124-131.
  • Benghozi, Pierre-Jean, and Francoise Benhamou (2010) ‘The Long Tail: Myth or Reality?’ in International Journal of Arts Management. 12(3):43-53.
  • Bruns, Axel (2013) ‘From prosumtion to produsage’ in Towse, Ruth and Christian Handke (eds.) Handbook of the Digital Creative Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
The digital experience of museums[edit]
Situation Positive Negative

Content of museums is more and more accessible online. The space and territory of museums is changing, it is acquiring new dimensions and it is providing new experiences to its audience.

  • Statistics about onsite visitors are central in the evaluation of management and of the performance of institutions.

  • Statistics about online visitors are very convincing.

  • Addis, M. (2002). Nuove tecnologie e consumo di prodotti artistici e culturali: Verso l’edutainment. Micro & Macro Marketing, 11(1), 33–59.
  • D’Alba, A., Jones, G., & Wright, R. (2015). Comparative analysis of visitors’ experiences and knowledge acquisition between a 3 dimensional online and a real-world art museum tour. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 24(1), 5–22.
  • Economou, M. (2008). A world of interactive exhibits. In P. Marty & K. B. Jones (Eds.), Museum informatics. People, information, and technology in museums (pp. 137–156). New York: Routledge.
  • Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992). Museums and the shaping of knowledge. London: Routledge.
  • Juanals, Brigitte (2016). Museums as Reterritorialization Spaces in the Digital Age: Between Knowledge Publishing and Institutional Communication. International Journal of the Inclusive Museum . 2016, Vol. 9 Issue 2, p19-26. 8p.
  • Levent, N., Knight, H., Chan, S., & Hammer, R. L. (2014). Technology, senses, and the future of museums. In N. Levent & A. Pascual-Leone (Eds.), The multisensory museum, cross-disciplinary perspectives on touch, sound, smell, memory, and space (pp. 341–348). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Mancini, F. (2008). Usability of virtual museums and the diffusion of cultural heritage: Reflexions on virtual and real exhibits design, for public education and entertainment. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.
  • Marty, Paul (2007) ‘Museum Websites and Museum Visitors: Before and After the Museum Visit’ in Museum Management and Curatorship. 22(4):337-360.* Rashid, H. (1999). The museum as a digital experience. Paper read at Proceedings of the ICOMON meetings held in Madrid, Spain, 1999.
  • Schnabel, M. A., & Aydin, S. (2015). Amphiboly of digital heritage: Why to create authenticity through gamification. In Digital Heritage 2015, Granada, Spain.
  • Settis, S. (2002). L’illusione dei beni digitali. In Bollettino ICR: Nuova Serie (n. 5, pp. 18–20). Roma.
  • Zimmer, R. (2008). Touch technologies and museum access. In H. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 150–162). Oxford, England: Berg.
  • Nguyen, Godefroy, Sylvain Dejean and Francois Moreau (2014) ‘On the complementarity between online and offline music consumption: the case of free streaming’ in Journal of Cultural Economics. 38(4):315-330.
  • Vallbe, Joan-Josep, et al., (2015) ‘Knocking on Heaven’s Door. User preferences on digital cultural distribution’ working paper available at SSRN: or .
Income from the "rights" of GLAMs[edit]
Situation Positive Negative

Some institutions sell reproductions (images) of their collections. If they upload images on Wikimedia Commons they will limit or eliminate the possibility of selling images.

  • Selling images provides a income for the institutions.
  • A public institution can not renounce to a source of income (in particular if there is an economic crisis i.e. Greece).
  • Not selling is a decision which a public institution can not take because it depends on the government or it depends on previous agreements (i.e. outsourcing of the photo service).
  • There is a problem of clearing about who can take the decision of stopping selling the images and make them all available for free.

  • The fact that institutions sell images of their collections
    • is an argument against making digital content of the institution widely available
    • encourages institutions to upload and make available content
      • in low resolution
      • with restricted access (registration, online fee, offline)
  • The number of images sold and income is limited.
  • Selling images has also costs: the management of the service and the work of the staff
  • It would cost less to provide all images for free.
  • Free images will increase the visibility of content.
  • Institutions are selling images of content which is already under public domain.
  • An increasing number of institutions are providing images for free.
  • Uploading low resolution or small images might increase the selling of high resolution images; in reality the license apply to all resolution; the only reason someone might be interested in a higher resolution is because he/she does not have access to it.
  • The images uploaded on the Wikimedia projects can be made available under cc by-sa; the sa limit (share-alike) requires that who uses the image will release it with the same license: for commercial purposes companies might want to not have to share their derivative works under the same license cc by-sa.

  • Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, M. (2013). Les politiques institutionnelles, entre restrictions contractuelles et collaboration avec des sites de partage, in dir. Serge Chaumier, Anne Krebs et Mélanie Roustan, Les visiteurs photographes. Un outil pour penser le musée, La Documentation française, Collection Musées-Mondes, p. 49-56, 2013. Reference to the Rapport d’activité et livret financier de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux Grand Palais, 2010 et 2011. (page 4-5).
  • Petri, G., (2014). The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art. Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies. 12(1), p.Art. 8. DOI:
  • Siegal, N. (2013) Masterworks for One and All in The New York Times, 28 May 2013.
  • Tanner, S. (2004). Reproduction charging models & rights policy for digital images in American art museums, a Mellon Foundation Study, King's College London. King's Digital Consultancy Services, 2004.
  • Lewis, C. "V&A Scraps Image Reproduction Fees for Academic Publications" 24 Hour Museum. Published December 2006 at (Accessed 6th January 2009)
  • Wall, G. “Business model issues in the development of digital cultural content”. First Monday, volume 8, number 5. Published May 2003 at (Accessed 29th January 2009).
  • Bray, P., Open Licensing and the Future for Collections. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the Web 2009: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Published March 31, 2009. Consulted July 27, 2016.
  • Frey, Bruno and Stephan Meier (2006) ‘The economics of museum’ in Ginsburgh, Victor and David Throsby (eds.) Handbook of the economics of art and culture. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.1017-1047.
  • Johnson, Peter and Barry Thomas (1998) ‘The Economics of Museums: A Research Perspective’ in Journal of Cultural Economics. 22(2):75-85.
Institution Year Income from "rights" Source
Photo agency of the Réunion des Musées Nationaux (France) 2010 3% of all income on rights associated to images (Dulong de Rosnay 2013)
Réunion des Musées Nationaux (France) 2011 (Dulong de Rosnay 2013)
Réunion des Musées Nationaux (France) uses a "société de gestion" des droits de reproduction des collections des musées nationaux 2010 57% of all income from the selling of derivative works (Dulong de Rosnay 2013)
Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire (BNU) de Strasbourg General Around 3000€ per year (Dulong de Rosnay 2013)
Institution Year Fee Source
The Getty Research Institute and the J. Paul Getty Museum Collection Image Fees 2016 15-200 $

Up to 500 $ for covers
Example Example Example Example
Example Example Example Example
Intangible cultural heritage[edit]
Situation Positive Negative

The importance of preserving and valorizing intangible cultural heritage is more and more acknowledged by policies and law. Digital content can be considered as intangible cultural heritage, it can contribute to preserve and valorize intangible cultural heritage and it can contribute to preserve and valorize all cultural heritage (which digitally becomes intangible).

  • Del Barrio, M. J., Devesa, M., & Herrero, L. C. (2012). Evaluating intangible cultural heritage: The case of cultural festivals. City, Culture and Society, 3, 235–244.
  • Irace, F. (2013). “Digitalization takes Command”. In: Design & Cultural Heritage: Immateriale Virtuale Interattivo. Ed. by F. Irace. Milano: Electa.
  • Lixinski, L. (2013). Intangible cultural heritage in international law. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Tucci, R. (2013). Beni culturali immateriali, patrimonio immateriale: Qualche riflessione fra dicotomie, prassi, valorizzazione e sviluppo. Voci, 10, 183–190.
Postcolonial heritage, heritage in danger and the shaping of history, memory and cultural heritage[edit]
  • Adair, B., Filene, B., & Koloski, L. (Eds.). (2011). Letting go? Sharing historical authority in a user-generated world. Philadelphia: The Pew Center for Arts & Heritage.
  • Ashworth, G. J., Tunbridge, J. E., & Graham, B. J. (2007). Pluralising pasts: Heritage, identity and place in multicultural societies. London: Pluto.
  • Benard, C. (2012). Mes Aynak ARCH—Alliance for the restoration of cultural heritage. White paper. Retrieved August 7, 2015, from
  • Bloch, H. (2015, September 10) Mega copper deal in Afghanistan fuels rush to save ancient treasures. National Geographic. Retrieved from
  • Brodie, N., Doole, J., & Renfrew, C. (2001). Trade in illicit antiquities: The destruction of the world’s archaeological heritage. Cambridge, England: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
  • Brodie, N., Kersel, M. M., Luke, C., & Tubb, K. W. (Eds.). (2006). Archaeology, cultural heritage, and the antiquities trade (Cultural heritage studies). Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
  • Florenzano, M., Courel, M.-F., & De Domenico, F. (2010). Digitally conserving an endangered built heritage in Kashgar, an oasis city of the Taklimakan. Paper read at 1st WATARID International Conference on Water, Ecosystems and Sustainable Development in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas, WATARID 2006, 9–15 October 2006, at Urumqi, China.
  • Francioni, F. (2008). Culture, heritage, and human rights: An introduction. In F. Francioni & M. Scheinin (Eds.), Cultural human rights. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
  • Iacovino, L. (2015). Shaping and reshaping cultural identity and memory: Maximising human rights through a participatory archive. Archives and Manuscripts., 43(1), 29–41.
  • Legêne, S. (2008). Flatirons and the folds of history. On archives, cultural heritage and colonial legacies. In S. Wieringa (Ed.), Traveling heritages. New perspectives on collecting, preserving and sharing women’s history (pp. 47–64). Amsterdam: Askant.
  • Loh, L. (2010). Conserving for change. Journal of Architectural Education, 63(2), 71–73.
  • Silberman, N., & Purser, M. (2012). Collective memory as affirmation: People-centred cultural heritage in a digital age. In E. Giaccardi (Ed.), Heritage and social media: Understanding heritage in a participatory culture (pp. 13–39). London: Routledge.
  • Silverman, H., & Ruggles, D. F. (Eds.). (2007). Cultural heritage and human rights. New York: Springer.
  • Ranaivoson, Heritiana, Does the Consumer Value Diversity? How the Economists' Standard Hypothesis is Being Challenged (December 14, 2012). in Vecco M. (Ed.), The Consumption of Culture, The Culture of Consumption. A Collection of Contributions on Cultural Consumption and Cultural Markets, Lambert Academic Publishing, p.70-95.

With reference to Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons or other Wikimedia projects[edit]

Argument Sources

Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects enhance the visibility of content.

The community will contribute to improve content (i.e. restoring images, correcting and enriching captions...). User-generated content, crowdsourcing, community engagement, active audiences...


Issues related to databases, metadata, linked data...

Images on Wikimedia Commons[edit]
Wikipedian in residence[edit]
Wiki Loves Monuments[edit]

Specific national situations[edit]

[Please add only papers or articles with an international relevance.]



  • Di Giorgio, S. (2014). Culturaitalia, the Italian national content aggregator in Europeana. Procedia Computer Science, 38, 40–43.
  • Gentilini, V. (2012) Librarians are Wikipedians Too. La collaborazione tra biblioteche e progetti wiki, vista dall'Italia, «Bibliotime», anno XV, numero 3 (novembre 2012).
  • Guccio, C., Marco Ferdinando Martorana, Isidoro Mazza, and Ilde Rizzo (2016). Technology and Public Access to Cultural Heritage: The Italian Experience on ICT for Public Historical Archives in K.J. Borowiecki et al. (eds.), Cultural Heritage in a Changing World.
  • Marras, Anna Maria, Maria Gerolama Messina, Donatella Mureddu, and Elena Romoli (2016). A Case Study of an Inclusive Museum: The National Archaeological Museum of Cagliari Becomes “Liquid” in K.J. Borowiecki et al. (eds.), Cultural Heritage in a Changing World.
  • MiBACT. (2014). Culture in Italy—Basic figures 2014. Roma: Gangemi Editore.

The Netherlands[edit]

  • Beumer, M. (2009). Capturing museum knowledge. A twenty year evolution in digitally recording the Tropenmuseum collection. Amsterdam: KIT Publishers.
  • Navarrete, T. (2009). An outsider’s perspective. In M. Beumer (Ed.), Capturing museum knowledge. A twenty year evolution in digitally recording the Tropenmuseum collection (pp. 69–78). Amsterdam: KIT Publishers.
  • Pekel, J. (2014). Democratising the Risjksmuseum: Why did the Rijksmuseum make available their highest quality material without restrictions, and what are the results? url: (cit. on p. 286).
  • Brinkerink, Maarten (2015) ‘Dutch Cultural Heritage Reaches Millions Every Month’ in Research & Development Blog. 17 June 2015. Available at cultural-heritage-reaches-millions-every-month.
  • Ongena, Guido, Erik Huizer and Lidwien van de Wijngaert (2012) ‘Threats and opportunities for new audiovidual cultural heritage archive services: the Dutch case’ in Telematics and Informatics. 29(2):156-165.


United States of America[edit]

  • Bowen, Jonathan and Tula Giannini (2014). The Brooklyn Visual Heritage Website: Brooklyn’s Museums and Libraries Collaborate for Project CHART, MW2014: Museums and the Web 2014.
  • Kalfatovic, M. R., Kapsalis, E., Spiess, K. P., Van Camp, A., & Edson, M. (2009). Smithsonian Team Flickr: A library, archives, and museums collaboration in web 2.0 space. Archival Science, 8(4), 267–277.
  • Spingarn-Koff, J. (2000). Guggenheim going virtual. Retrieved August 28, 2015, from http://
  • Springer, M., Dulabahn, B., Michel, P., Natanson, B., Resser, D., Woodward, D. and Zinkham, H. “For the Common Good: The Library of Congress Flickr Pilot Project”. Published October 30, 2008 at (Accessed 20th December 2008)

United Kingdom[edit]

Copyrights and other relevant laws related to GLAMs and cultural heritage[edit]

Issues related to GLAMs and copyrights are efficiently summarized on GLAM/Media rights and usage on Commons which explains what can be uploaded or not by GLAMs on the Wikimedia projects (more specifically on Wikimedia Common and Wikipedia).

  • De Angelis, D. (2009). “Brevi note in tema di applicabilità delle licenze Creative Commons ai beni pubblici culturali”. In: DigItalia 2, pp. 9– 23, 61–73. url: (visited on 08/05/2014).
  • Waelde, C., & Cummings, C. (2015). RICHES: Digital copyrights framework. Retrieved from CopyrightsFramework_public.pdf
  • Yu, P. K. (2004). Intellectual property at a crossroads: Why history matters. 38 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1.
  • Bray, Open Licensing and the Future for Collections, in J. Trant e D. Bearman (eds), Museums and the Web 2009: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2009. (Disponibile su
  • Melissa Brown, Kenneth Crews, “Control of Museum Art Images: The Reach and Limits of Copyright and Licensing”, Kur and Vytautas Mizaras, eds, The structure of intellectual property law, Edward Elgar, 2011, pp. 269-284.
  • Pantolony, R.E. “WIPO Guide on Managing Intellectual Property for Museums”. Published August 2007 at (Accessed 6th January 2009)

Advantages of open data[edit]

  • Sahuguet, A & D. Sangokoya (2015). A “calculus” for open data. medium .com (last visited 31.05.2016).
  • Manyika, J. and Michael Chui, Diana Farrell, Steve Van Kuiken, Peter Groves, and Elizabeth Almasi Doshi (2013). Open data: Unlocking innovation and performance with liquid information. Report. McKinsey Global Institute.

Advocating for the public domain[edit]

Works explaining why the public domain must be defended and expanded. Relevant to monuments and collections and to claims of copyright on scans and reproductions.
Please refer more specifically to GLAM/GLAMs and the Public Domain to understand why the issue of public domain is so central.

Rights related to the photos of artworks[edit]

Freedom of panorama[edit]

Please refer to w:en:Freedom of panorama

Photos of archeological sites[edit]

  • M. Serlorenzi, V. Boi, I. Jovine, M. Stacca (in press). Open Data in archeologia. Una questione giuridica o culturale? In Grossi, P. (ed.). Atti del IX Workshop ArcheoFOSS. Archeologia e Calcolatori, Supplemento 7.
  • M. Trabucco, Pubblico ma non pubblico: prospettive normative sulla proprietà intellettuale dei dati archeologici. In Cignoni P., Palombini A. & Pescarin S. (eds.), Atti del IV Workshop ArcheoFOSS. Archeologia e Calcolatori 2009, Supplemento 2. pp. 65-70.

Specific national situations[edit]

Issues emerging in discussing with GLAMs about their contribution to Wikipedia[edit]

Critique Sources

You can not rely on Wikipedia (this is why it is not possible to quote Wikipedia in universities.

  • Adler, Thomas et al. (2008) ‘Assigning Trust to Wikipedia Content’ in Proceedings WikiSym.
  • Casebourne, I., Davies, C., Fernandes, M et al. (2012). Assessing the accuracy and quality of Wikipédia entries compared to popular online encyclopaedias: A comparative preliminary study across disciplines in English, Spanish and Arabic. University of Oxford, Epic. En ligne surédia/commons/2/29/EPIC_Oxford_report.pdf (consulté le 17.1.2016)

People can continue to modify articles. If we - experts - contribute to Wikipedia we need the articles to be blocked or to remain as they are.

  • Control

Papers related to the quality associated to the number of contributors (the more an article is edited the more it tends to be enriched and reviewed).

If we release content under the cc by-sa license we authorize other people to use the documentation without knowing it and without approving the use.

  • Control

Official documents and laws[edit]

  • Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. (1994).
  • Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. (1886).
  • WIPO Copyright Treaty. (1996).
  • European Commission. (2011). Commission recommendation of 27 October 2011 on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation. Official Journal of the European Union, 54.
  • European Commission. (2014). Cultural heritage. Digitisation, online accessibility and digital preservation. Report on the Implementation of Commission Recommendation 2011/711/EU. Progress report 2011–2013. Retrieved December 7, 2015, from document.cfm?doc_id¼9745
  • Council Directive 2013/37/EU3 on re-use of public sector information.
  • Council Directive 2003/98/EC1 on the re-use of public sector information.
  • Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works.
  • Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights.
  • Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works.
  • Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (codified version).
  • Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases.
  • Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
  • Dal 28 gennaio 2016 il ‘wikipediano’ è una figura riconosciuta dalla norma UNI 11621-3 relativa alle Attività professionali non regolamentate – Profili professionali per l’ICT: < stable/g3/profiles/WSP-G3-025.pdf>.
  • UNESCO. (1954, May 14). Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict with regulations for the execution of the convention 1954. First Protocol, The Hague.
  • UNESCO. (1999, March 26). Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict with regulations for the execution of the convention 1954. Second Protocol, The Hague.

Other online resources[edit]