| page 3 ... © Dr Cathie Clement |
DEVELOPING A REGISTER OF FOLKLOREI think that much could be gained from the creation of a folklore listing or register. Its usefulness will, of course, depend on its form and capabilities. Consideration could be given to whether the National Register of Folklore Collections could be expanded and made into an electronic, searchable register of agencies and people who hold and/or have rights to specific items of Australian folklore. Such a register, as well as picking up where the Australian Folk Trust publications of the 1980s and early 1990s left off, could encourage and facilitate the responsible use of folklore. It could also provide advice on the ethical use of folklore.If such an item level register were to be created, it would be desirable for it to be designed with input from all the individuals responsible for major collections of Australian folklore. It would also be desirable for it to include information about sources of credible information relevant to specific items of folklore. That information, as well as coming from catalogues, could be obtained by inviting input from knowledgable people. Individuals who are interested in specific topics will already hold details of material, including corrective information, for their own purposes. In some instances, libraries will be indexing such material for interest groups and/or public use. An item level register could begin to pull together much of that material and, in the process, identify folklore about which little is known. With such a register in place, it might be possible to:
THE PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF FEESWhilst my interest in a register is in its value as a tool and a finding aid, Seal's interest seems to be in its scope for exacting payments for the use of folklore. I recognise that the custodians of the various components of our heritage are under pressure to make users pay but I believe that caution is needed. In particular, I believe that custodians who wish to impose fees for the use of cultural resources should investigate whether doing so is likely to have a negative impact.To explain my concerns about negative impacts, I will refer to an existing situation rather than a hypothetical one involving folklore. The existing situation involves the fees that are asked for the use of the majority of the wonderful pictorial images held in government-funded reference libraries and repositories. The fees vary but few self-funded writers and publishers can afford them. As a result, many of the books and heritage materials that are compiled in this country miss out on using the best and most relevant images from the past. For those who are not familiar with publishing, it is worth noting that many books about the past are published, often with little or no payment to the author, in print runs of up to 1000 copies. Those copies generally sell slowly and are often priced between $20 and $40. The return to the author and/or publisher is usually minimal, meaning that an outlay of $50 and more per image cannot be justified. The paragraphs that follow comment on the costs associated with the production and sale of a very modest book. If an author or publisher locates a desirable image in a reference library and wishes to reproduce it in a book, he or she usually has to pay one fee to obtain the image, another fee to reproduce it, and possibly a third fee for postage of the purchased image. If those fees add up to $50 for a single image, and the book in question retails at $20, the publisher may have to sell twenty or more copies of the book to recoup the cost of that image. Additional books would have to be sold to cover the cost of either a more expensive image or multiple images. The sharing of $20 from a sale in a bookshop will vary but would be in the vicinity of: $1.82 to the government in GST; $7.27 to the bookshop (at the usual 40% commission); and $10.91 to the publisher. Payments for freight and possibly for royalty will come out of those amounts. Of much greater impact, however, is that the publisher will probably have spent upwards of $2.00 per book in preparing the text and any images for printing, and then another $6.00 or thereabouts per book in having the copies printed. The publisher thus stands to derive a return of approximately $2.50 per book if he/she has not paid reproduction fees for images. In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that self-funded authors and publishers find it hard to justify paying $50 and more to obtain and use an image. The same is true of professionals and enthusiasts who document built environment heritage. It could be argued that heritage practitioners and self-funded writers and publishers should factor the cost of using the best images into the prices they charge. But, in the market place, such actions are not always an option. For example, when a modest book has to compete against others that include lavishly presented works subsidised by government agencies, even a small price increase will make a modest book less attractive to a customer. Another argument offered in support of fees is that, while the use of images in many written works is decreasing, their availability in other formats is improving, eg on the Web sites of libraries, archives and museums. To some extent that improvement reflects a decreased external demand, which allows staff more time to conserve and process pictorial collections. But Web images are generally available for viewing only in a context divorced from the circumstances in which they were created. Some images also carry incorrect information because too little is known about them. In the meantime, the written works miss out on images that would make them more visually appealing, interesting, and informative. It is therefore essential, if folklore is to be considered as an economic resource, that someone investigates both the pros and cons of imposing fees for access and use. An investigation should also be made into the likely returns that can be expected from payments for the use of folklore. Seal writes: 'The returns might fund the administrative costs of registering, monitoring and collecting and any residues could go into a perpetual fund that could be used for the benefit of the community(ies), perhaps on a grant-giving model such as many places employ with the proceeds of their lotteries.' I would be surprised if the returns were substantial. An investigation of the returns from payments made for the use of images (after administration costs) would provide insight into the likely level of returns that might come from developing folklore as an economic resource. next . . . |