You are on page 1of 41

Environmental Scan

of Moving Image
Collections in the
United States
September 2008

Jennifer Mohan
ii

First Digital Library Federation electronic edition, September 2008


Some rights reserved. Published by the Digital Library Federation.

This edition licensed under the Creative Commons


Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/>

The moral rights of the author have been asserted.

Digital Library Federation ISBN-13: 978-1-933645-35-3

www.diglib.org.

This publication was funded by generous support from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
iii

Contents
I. Introduction....................................................................................................2

II. Size. ..................................................................................................................4

III. Staff. .................................................................................................................5

IV. Funding...........................................................................................................6

V. Condition.........................................................................................................7

VI. Content. ...........................................................................................................8

VII. Preservation Assessment and Costs. ..........................................................9

VIII. Access Issues...................................................................................................10

IX. Cataloging.......................................................................................................11

X. New Projects in Development......................................................................12

XI. Formats, Media, Standards, and Obsolescence.........................................13

XII. Rights...............................................................................................................15

XIII. Digital Projects...............................................................................................16

XIV. Public-Private Agreements...........................................................................17

XV. Observations...................................................................................................18

XVI. Conclusion. .....................................................................................................20

XVII. Appendix I—Environmental Scan Questions...........................................21

XVIII. Appendix II—Selected Summary Data......................................................23

XIX. Appendix III—Survey Comments. .............................................................29

XX. Appendix IV—List of Participating Institutions.......................................34

XXI. Bibliography....................................................................................................36

XXII. Acknowledgments.........................................................................................37
iv

About the Author


Jen Mohan Museum Studies with a concentration in Modern
American Cultural History. In 2006 she earned her
Jen Mohan is a research associate with Intelligent M.A. in Moving Image Archiving and Preservation
Television. Previously, she was an account manager from New York University, where she wrote her thesis
at Critical Mention, a television monitoring service on the digital distribution of archival materials.
in New York City. Among her research interests are She is the author of “The Digital Library Federa-
moving image archiving and preservation, copy- tion’s Environmental Scan: Issues with the Digitization
right law and media distribution, digital distribu- of the Moving Image” published in the Summer, 2008
tion of moving images, new technology, Internet edition of the Metropolitan Archivist , and is the co-
culture and new media sharing and creation. Ms. author, along with Peter Kaufman, of "The Economics
Mohan received her M.A. from the University of of Film and Video Distribution in the Digital Age,”
Massachusetts-Amherst in 2004 in Public History/ written for and published by the Tribeca Film Institute.
v
2 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

I. INTRODUCTION

I
n July of 2007, the Digital Library Federation lections improves access for researchers, students, and
(DLF) hosted a landmark meeting at the Univer- the general public, and it enables archives to expose
sity of California, Berkeley, of a group called Lot important collections. While an unprecedented level of
49 on the topic of moving image digitization. Orga- access is possible, hundreds of thousands of films and
nized by Peter Brantley of DLF and Rick Prelinger videos remain locked in vaults or unused on shelves
of the Prelinger Archives, the meeting assembled a because their existence is unknown to the public.
number of moving image experts. The group’s aim For more than a century, the only way research-
was to facilitate broader access to the incredible trove ers could access moving image collections was if
of film and video held in archives, libraries, muse- they visited the physical location of the collection
ums, broadcast stations, and other sources. and were permitted to view the material in the
The group agreed that access is key to the sur- reading room. Technical developments have given
vival of moving image archives and that digitization the moving images community an opportunity to
is the best way to improve access. During the course provide on-demand access unavailable to previous
of the day, the group identified as its priorities (1) do- generations. The goal of this survey is to assess the
ing an assessment of moving image collections (since nature and condition of these collections and to
funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and determine to what extent these technologies are be-
resulting in this report) and (2) coming up with a set ing adopted by moving image curators.
of principles for increasing access to those materials. The survey’s timeframe of five months limited
In part, the group wished to be prepared for interest its reach to major research universities, independent
on the part of funders and potential private sector archives of moving images, major museums, major
partners in digitizing motion materials. public libraries with significant holdings of film and
In preparing this report, discussion of digitiza- video, and a number of public television stations. In
tion for access could not be entirely separated from addition to the survey, research visits were made to
digitization for preservation purposes. In most past archives in New York, San Francisco, Washington,
practices, the latter has been done before the former. D.C., and Boston.
For the purposes of this report, the word archive is Although smaller and niche archives were not
used as shorthand for any institution or other body targeted, they ended up playing a major role in the
that houses moving image collections. research. A number of small and niche archives
The moving images survey aimed to investigate participated in the project despite the draw on time
the overall condition of moving image collections in and staff to complete the survey. Their contributions
the United States as well as to assess which archives made the findings more diverse and will increase the
were ready to move forward with moving image digi- benefits to the broader archival community. Small
tization projects. The digitization of moving image col- and niche collections present special opportunities
I.  Introduction 3

and challenges in the community’s mission of offer- Although these prior surveys include informa-
ing access to as many archival collections as possible. tion that overlaps with this survey, the ambitions
Out of the 506 archives that were contacted, 70 of this environmental scan differ from both. While
archives responded. Because not all survey ques- Brewer and Matwichuk’s work is exceptional in its
tions applied to each type of archive, the survey tak- concentration on demographics, access, budget, and
ers were encouraged to skip questions that did not staff, this scan concentrates on types and formats
pertain to them. Overall, most archives answered all of content, digital formats, and copyright concerns.
the questions. Whereas the work of Geisler, Anderson, and Sheldon
The survey included 30 questions that covered focused almost exclusively on archives’ progress into
the following topics: the digital space, this survey concentrates on each
• size archive’s apparent readiness to do so and the obsta-
• funding cles and roadblocks they currently face. Much of this
• condition survey examines how prepared archives are to begin
• content digital projects and, perhaps even more important,
• preservation assessments and costs why many are not. Only by delving into individual
• access issues archives can we get an indication of how prepared
• cataloging they are to launch projects that will take them into
• new projects in development the digital realm.
• formats, media, standards, and obsolescence Another unique aspect of this scan is its investiga-
• rights tion into archives’ attitudes toward digitization proj-
• digital projects ects funded by private companies. Google, Microsoft,
• public-private agreements Amazon, and other corporations have launched large-
The ultimate goal of this survey was to deter- scale digitization projects with libraries and archives
mine the overall health of the archives and to see in the past four years, providing new opportunities
how ready they are to begin digitizing their moving to increase access and exposure. The vast majority of
image collections. Many issues need to be resolved archives cannot afford such projects on their own. The
before archival collections can be digitized, and the financial power of these companies, together with the
answers to questions in these topical areas will help uniqueness of the community’s moving image collec-
give the community an overall idea of how ready tions, offers an extraordinary opportunity to enhance
they are to begin such projects. access to some of the most prestigious collections.
This survey is not the first investigation into Although these partnerships have the potential to
the condition of moving image collections in this provide unrivaled access, many questions have arisen
country. Other surveys launched over the past 10 regarding how beneficial the terms of the contracts
years have provided valuable information regard- are for the institutional partners. Many issues related
ing many aspects of the nation’s collections. Michael to the ownership of digital copies and the ability to
Brewer (University of Arizona) and Meghann Mat- freely share digital copies make it essential to improve
wichuk (University of Delaware) completed a 2007 the terms in the next generation of these partnerships.
survey, ALA Video/Media Collections. It provides The surveyed archives had strong opinions as to what
essential background on many aspects of a variety would be important for them if they were to enter into
of archives, including academic and public libraries such agreements and were eager for a basic policy to
and community colleges, among others. Another guide their approach to public-private partnerships.
survey, the 2005 Open Video Project by Gary Geisler, The survey concentrated on large archives that
Caryn Anderson, and Karan Sheldon, investigated would be more likely to have the resources for digi-
many digital issues among archives. Examining the tization projects, but the responses represented a
questions and responses of these materials served variety of archives: 17 film and television archives,
as guidance in how to craft this survey in ways that 5 historical societies, 3 public television stations, 22
would encourage rich, meaningful responses filled colleges and universities, 13 museums, 4 Presidential
with vital information about archives. libraries, 2 state archives, and 4 public libraries.
4 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

II. SIZE

T
he sizes of the moving image collections over a hundred thousand films and videos. Not all
were diverse. Four archives said they have respondents answered the question regarding the
between 1–250 moving image items, 7 have size of their collections. In summary, the holdings
251–500, 3 have 501–1,000, 32 have 1,001–10,000, and range from 200 to 112,000 items.
11 archives reported they have tens of thousands to
III.  Staff 5

III. STAFF

I
nadequate staffing poses a major obstacle to Staffing is especially problematic in some of
digitization. Most of the archives had little or the government archives—archives one might
no staff time to dedicate to the major processes assume would have greater access to resources and
that are required to initiate and execute digital funding. Some government agencies, in fact, were
projects. In extreme cases, single archivists take at the other end of the spectrum. One government-
on the roles of many people, constantly balanc- funded museum has only one archivist for an entire
ing multiple responsibilities, sometimes with no audiovisual department, where there are a variety
support staff. To ask them to somehow find the of day-to-day responsibilities, including process-
time to plan, organize, and supervise digitization ing, cataloging, preservation assessment and repair,
projects, on top of all their other responsibilities, assisting researchers, and writing grant proposals,
is unrealistic. leaving little time for any new initiatives.
6 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

IV. FUNDING

A
vast majority of the archives surveyed have It is no surprise that virtually all the surveyed
a variety of funding sources, although only archives rely heavily on grants, private donations,
a handful receive income from the reproduc- and budget allotments from parent institutions.
tion or licensing of materials in their collections. The baseline budget often can support only basic
In fact, the only archives surveyed that actively necessities such as staffing, storage, and supplies.
engage in the selling of copies of their collection Most projects such as digitization, reformatting (and
are Electronic Arts Intermix, one of the most presti- other preservation activities), installation of cold
gious collections of video art in the world, and Doc- storage, cataloging, and processing new collections
umentary Educational Resources, a producer and are achieved primarily with funds procured through
distributor of ethnographic films. Both organiza- fund-raisers, grants, and private donations. Unfortu-
tions recoup a portion of the costs of their programs nately, writing grant proposals takes time from busy
through the sale of DVDs and other copies of work staff members. Often a consultant is hired, drawing
to museums, universities, private collectors, artists, on those limited funds.
and galleries. For the collections that require grants to digi-
Other archives function as material provid- tally preserve their material, many steps precede the
ers for researchers and scholars. Most museums, writing of the grant proposal. These steps include
university special collections, and libraries provide a collection assessment, a copyright assessment,
materials, but at the cost of producing the DVD, the cataloging of the collection, and the prioritizing
VHS tape, or Beta SP copy. An added benefit is that of highest-risk materials—all this takes an enor-
the researcher pays for the initial reproduction of mous amount of time. Although some archives can
the original, which provides the archive with a copy. use interns or volunteer workers, this work is best
Although this does not go very far toward digitizing done by trained and qualified professionals who
entire collections, it does provide a start to efforts to can make accurate assessments. For the surveyed
digitize and transfer portions of collections, most of archives, staffing and funding deficiencies are seri-
which will happen to be the most frequently used ous problems in their preservation efforts and on
and “important” parts of the collections. their digitization aspirations.
V.  Condition 7

V. CONDITION
A
n overwhelming number of the surveyed proper storage is a huge obstacle in proper housing
archives claimed that their collections vary in of deteriorating collections.
terms of condition. Most of the materials that A wide variety of issues surrounded the condi-
are at risk are video (mostly reel-to-reel, U-matic, tion of materials. Some of the most frequently named
and various Beta tapes). Various film formats are were the backlog of unprocessed materials, dete-
also at risk, such as 8-mm, nitrate, and 16-mm film. rioration of magnetic tape–based materials, lack of
Home movies, which have often been treated badly long-term storage, preservation challenges presented
before coming to the archive, are of particular con- by electronic media (including e-mail and obsolete
cern. The most important component of proper storage media), the need to transfer materials to new
condition is cold storage. Virtually all the surveyed formats, vinegar syndrome1, the need to make new
archives that have cold storage claimed that their col- copies of films, improper storage, inadequate storage
lections are either in good shape or very good shape. space, and inadequate staff to care for the collections.
All archives without cold storage claimed that their Specific comments given by participating archives
collections are in bad condition or at risk. The cost of can be found in appendix III, “Survey Comments.”

1 Vinegarsyndrome is a slow form of chemical deterioration of cellulose acetate film,


which is caused by poor storage conditions. It is so named because as film degrades,
it gradually shrinks, becomes brittle, and generates acetic acid, which evaporates
into the air, producing a sharp, vinegar odor—Image Permanence Institute Glossary,
http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/shtml_sub/glossary.asp#V
8 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

VI. CONTENT

P
erhaps the most important information • educational
gathered in this project regards the content • feature films
represented in the various archives. Archives • oral history
should be valued as much for the uniqueness of their • television programs
holdings as they are for their size. The survey asked • nonfiction
the archivists to describe the types of content they • fiction
held. Many archives responded to the question by • home movies
saying something along the lines of “name it and we • amateur
have it,” from which it is assumed their collections • commencement footage
represented virtually every content type mentioned • biographical features
by others. Below are the content types that were Getting a sense of what collections researchers used
most often mentioned. A complete list is located in most would indicate perhaps some of the best collec-
appendix II, “Selected Summary Data.” tions to digitize, or at least the first to begin digitiz-
• documentary ing. The answers varied significantly, and a sampling
• news film and video is listed in appendix III, “Survey Comments.”
VII.  Preservation Assessment and Costs 9

VII. PRESERVATION ASSESSMENT


AND COSTS
T
o determine how much knowledge the archi­ the collection. However, many do have established
vists had about the condition of their collec- and productive relationships with an outside vendor
tions, the survey inquired about previous for transfer of materials. Other archives are able to
preservation assessments that have been performed perform basic maintenance on their own materials,
at their archives. The responses were encouraging, such as leader changes, splicing, canister transfers,
as most archives could recall when their last assess- etc. A significant number of archives send their ma-
ment was performed, and for many archivists, the terials to a general conservation center within their
materials were given preservation assessments as parent institution. These conservationists may be
they were processed. Many assessments were dated, specialists in materials such as photos, maps, and
and again, lack of time and staff were major obsta- manuscripts but not necessarily moving images.
cles in updating preservation information or launch- Not only is there a risk in having the moving
ing new preservation assessments for their moving images treated by those who are not trained to pre-
image collections. serve those media, but some institutions are more
Some of the most common preservation costs, hesitant to provide funding for transfers and other
including staff, supplies (acid-free folders, film preservation activities when the institution has a
containers, and splicing tape), and storage, are also conservation center of its own. It is up to the archi-
the most frequently mentioned preservation issues. vists and others to convince senior management that
Other needs mentioned were film-to-film reformat- transfers and duplication of moving images should
ting, processing collections, transfers from various only be entrusted to moving image preservation
obsolete film and video formats, and inadequate specialists. A sizeable number of archives engage
server space for digitized materials. in grant writing in order to fund such preservation
Most of the archives surveyed do not have an in- projects, while others are able to hire outside consul-
house preservation team or conservator to maintain tants who specialize in moving image preservation.
10 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

VIII. ACCESS ISSUES

T
he overwhelming barrier regarding access to covery of important materials by researchers. Con-
moving images is the absence of viewing copies sidering the time and staff constraints to fix these
for researchers, students, and others. This lack problems, archives rely heavily upon the extensive
of copies puts archivists in a difficult situation, as the knowledge of senior archivists in these situations.
only way they can provide access to these materials Once these archivists retire or move on, this resource
is to make available the originals, increasing the risk for researchers is lost.
of unrecoverable damage or loss. Of course, viewing Rights concerns prevent many archives from
the material also depends on whether the archive making viewing copies because they are precluded
has a working player, as many of the viewing cop- by donor agreements or because sometimes the
ies are on U-matic or Beta players that are difficult copyright holders cannot be identified or located.
to obtain and expensive to maintain. Some archives To ameliorate the issue of rights concerns, archives
require a requesting researcher to pay for the mak- may find it useful to update donor agreements with
ing of a viewing copy that the archive then keeps. permission to transfer materials without having to
Another major issue is the lack of catalog re- contact the donor. Some copyright owners pass away
cords. Many archives reported that they have a and it is unclear who assumes control of the materi-
cataloging backlog, preventing them from knowing als, making it difficult for the archive to know whom
all that is in their collections. Another issue is hav- to contact.
ing outdated records, such as finding aids that have Other access issues that were mentioned were
not been updated to indicate materials have been the lack of staff to supervise patrons, inadequate
repaired, reformatted, or moved to or returned from viewing rooms, need for researchers to travel to the
cold storage. Many archives reported not having site to view materials, lack of computers, and lack
enough detailed information in their finding aids of server space. For more detail, see appendix III,
and catalog records, which in turn hampers the dis- “Survey Comments.”
IX.  Cataloging 11

IX. CATALOGING
A
nother goal of the survey was to learn what The majority of respondents said that they
kinds of catalog records and standards ar- accept materials into their collections even if they
chives are using for their collections. The have incomplete or even nonexistent descriptions,
most used standards were MARC and Dublin Core. so some of the materials are not cataloged until
A majority of archives surveyed created their own archivists have time to do in-depth research into
data models that borrowed fields from MARC and their origins. Many of the respondents, as reflected
Dublin Core. Virtually none of the archives sur- in the survey’s responses, feel curatorial responsi-
veyed upload their catalog records to the Moving bility for these materials and value their potential
Image Collections (MIC) Union Catalog for discov- usefulness over the need to catalog them. Such
ering, locating, and (in some cases) viewing moving materials therefore may be filed in the archive with
images from around the world. However, almost inadequate information and, as a result, may remain
all were familiar with MIC and some had debated undiscoverable by researchers and scholars. For
sharing their records. more detail, see appendix III, “Survey Comments.”
12 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

X. NEW PROJECTS IN DEVELOPMENT

T
he survey asked archives about new projects maintenance of those other materials. Thirteen ar-
currently in development not only to learn chives were currently engaged in projects dealing
if they were already engaged in digitization with some sort of digitization, either for in-house
projects, but also to find out if other new initia- use or for public access on their Web site. Other new
tives distracted or prevented them from digitiza- projects mentioned were cataloging new collec-
tion. Many of the moving image archives are part tions, merging existing catalog records into a single
of larger collections that also include audio, paper, system, and transferring obsolete media to newer,
paintings, books, etc.; some of the moving images more stable formats. For more detail, see appendix
projects compete with needed preservation and III, “Survey Comments.”
XI.  Formats, Media, Standards, and Obsolescence 13

XI. FORMATS, MEDIA, STANDARDS,


AND OBSOLESCENCE
T
he variety of formats held in the participating is too expensive for them to purchase. Another
archives is of critical importance. The diversity frequently overlooked issue is that very few profes-
of film and especially video present particular sional archivists know how to operate and repair
preservation challenges, as archivists need to ensure obsolete equipment. Archives will increasingly rely
that they have the personnel, supplies, equipment, on trained professionals at preservation and migra-
and know-how to effectively take care of a wide tion houses such as Vidipax and Media Matters,
range of formats in their collections. since new generations of archivists will not arrive
Virtually every archive surveyed stated they with the necessary training or may not have access
had either obsolete media or media that required to the necessary equipment.
obsolete machines. Two archives said they did Some of the collections at greatest risk are those
not know if they had such media or equipment in that have small numbers of items on obsolete media.
their collections, and only two said that materials It is difficult to convince management to spend
on obsolete media had been transferred to newer money on the necessary equipment, since the mate-
formats, or that they had adequate equipment for rials do not constitute a large portion of the overall
viewing such media. The types of media that were collection. For the same reason, it is difficult to raise
most commonly mentioned were funds or get grants to transfer the
Digital Audio Tape (DAT), reel-to- Film: materials.
reel video, Hi-8, U-matic, various • 8-mm: 51.4% While many archivists did not
Beta tapes, 2-inch quad, 1-inch • 16-mm: 74.2% want to participate in the survey
quad, 8-mm, Super 8, and 16-mm • 35-mm: 55.7% because they felt their collections
film. To the right is the statistical • Super 8: 28.5% were not substantial enough to
breakdown of what is held in the warrant their inclusion, the re-
Video:
participating archives. (A full list sults have made it clear that many
• VHS: 78.5%
is located in appendix II, “Selected resources and much energy need
• DVD: 68.5%
Summary Data.”) • Beta SP: 58.5% to be dedicated to the smaller
Although some archives are • U-matic: 54.2% collections that are often falling
currently transferring their materi- • 2-inch video: 44.2% through the cracks.
als to newer formats (mostly Beta • Digibeta: 44.2% Roughly half the archives
SP preservation copies or DVD • 1-inch: 42.8% surveyed have adopted standards
viewing copies), many others have • Betacam: 38.5% for digital copies, though in many
difficulty finding transfer equip- • ½-inch: 28.5% cases those standards pertain to
ment or find that the equipment photograph and paper collections.
14 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

Most archives support many digital formats and Many respondents said that they attend confer-
have different formats for preservation and view- ences and workshops dealing with digital standards.
ing purposes. The most common formats for digital But all are very aware of the debate surrounding dig-
preservation copies are Digibeta and DV. For digital ital standards. Some of the most frequently named
access copies, a wide variety of formats were named, organizations offering conferences and workshops
the most popular being WAV, Real Media, MPEG-2, were the Association of Moving Image Archivists
MPEG-4, MOV, QuickTime, and Flash, as well as (AMIA) and the Society of American Archivists
DVD. (SAA), but many archivists attend local or regional
meetings and workshops.
XII.  Rights 15

XII. RIGHTS
P
erhaps no other issue pertaining to digitiza- barriers that prevent a vast majority of the archives
tion has been as much a hindrance as copy- from assessing rights. Out of the 60 archives re-
right. Archives are particularly sensitive to sponding to this question, only 5 answered that
this issue because most of the collections given to they had performed a copyright assessment for
them were not deemed financially valuable, some- their collections. A few others stated that rights
times leading to lapses in copyright status as copy- information is documented when the collections
rights; other times, resulting in transfers of rights are processed and that most of their rights informa-
that are not communicated to archivists. tion is obtained in this way rather than through
Rights restrictions can be detrimental to large, expansive projects such as copyright assess-
archivists’ attempts to preserve works, as copyright ments. Five archives stated that they have 90 to
holders, donors, or other rights holders can restrict 100 percent clearance for their moving image collec-
the transfer of materials, even if they are on obso- tions; a few others state that they have a good grasp
lete formats, to newer, more stable media. It is often on the overall copyright status of their collections.
very difficult for an archivist to contact the owner to However, a much greater number said that they
request permission—or even to identify the owner. do not have acceptable information on the copy-
Rights assessments are enormously important right status or very little is known with complete
for archivists, yet time, labor, and legal costs are confidence.
16 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

XIII. DIGITAL PROJECTS

F
unding is the biggest obstacle preventing ar- ing a substantial number of researchers, and film
chives from engaging in digital projects. It is and video collections at large museums have many
no secret that archives have a history of basic more opportunities to generate revenue for their
funding limited to the necessities to run an archive. collections. Some digitization is going on in these
Extra funding for preservation and digital projects archives; but even though many films and videos
must be acquired through grants, private donations, have been put on Digibeta or other forms of digital
or fund-raising. Virtually all the archives said they tape, a vast majority of their films and videos have
received grants, held fund-raisers, or received private not been transferred to digital files.
donations in order to support projects, but very few Right now, the main efforts of archives seem
of these projects were digitization projects. Most of to be concentrated on infrastructure stabilization.
the money funds collection stabilization and devel- It is difficult to justify planning digitization projects
opment, including new cataloging projects and trans- if the vast majority of archives are not able to docu-
fers of obsolete film and video formats for preserva- ment the materials in their collections, maintain
tion and access. Other concerns are improper storage, adequate conditions, or provide sufficient catalog
costs of temporary staff for cataloging projects, and records of the materials. Although digital projects
the need to make new copies of rare film prints. are the subject of a lot of recent discussion, very few
Larger archives with unique material, special of the archives can actually afford them.
collections housed in prominent universities attract-
XIV.  Public-Private Agreements 17

XIV. PUBLIC-PRIVATE AGREEMENTS


T
he survey asked whether archives had been portions of their collections are fragile and need
approached by private companies regard- to be handled in a professional manner. Copyright
ing digitization projects. The answers were was another major issue, as some archives doubted
roughly split, with half the respondents saying being able to provide copyright information, while
that they had been contacted and the other half others doubted the owners would be willing to par-
saying they had not. Virtually all the respondents ticipate in the project. Aside from a few enthusiastic
expressed concern over the deals between private respondents who would like to explore potential
companies and collections, with many of them deals, the majority of the respondents feared there
stating loss of control over their collections as would be too many issues to overcome, most nota-
the primary reason they would hesitate to enter bly staff constraints, labor needs, and rights man-
such agreements. Other archives were concerned agement. For more detail, see appendix III, “Survey
about who would be handling the materials, as Comments.”
18 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

XV. OBSERVATIONS
• Because improving the catalog and other meta- ther, retiring staff members often have no junior
data is essential before digitization projects can staff to whom they can impart their knowledge.
be launched, grants and other resources are well Extensive knowledge will be lost as senior archi-
spent on collection infrastructure. Initiating pres- vists depart, taking their long-standing, intimate
ervation analysis projects will increase awareness knowledge of the collections with them. Especially
of the collections in greatest need of transfer from missed will be their crucial knowledge of uncata-
unstable formats. loged moving images, materials that are in other
• Archivists might think about creating some kind parts of the institution, and materials of special
of union catalog (or using MIC) to share informa- interest to scholars and researchers. Researchers,
tion on what materials are currently available in students, and scholars who rely on specialists to
digital form. Transfer costs could be reduced by guide them in the right direction will feel the loss.
sharing copies with fellow archives. • When archivists enter into public-private partner­
• Many archives are very passionate about accepting ships, they should undertake the solicitation of
materials into their collections whether or not they a digitization impact statement that includes
come with descriptive information, feeling that it answers to these questions: What are the rami-
is their duty to protect and preserve the materials. fications of this digitization for the public? Will
It is unlikely that future acquisitions will be reject- it benefit the archive’s responsibility to preserve
ed due to inadequate descriptive information. and steward this material? What is the impact on
• Many archives expressed anxiety at the many the institution and on its continuing pursuit of its
roadblocks they face when attempting to transfer core mission and values? And what is the impact
and preserve materials. Rights determination is on the kindred organizations and their ability to
one of the biggest challenges they face, as many achieve their own aims? Public institutions should
donor agreements restrict the transfer of materi- make public these impact statements, and when
als. For future acquisitions, archives should in- the stakes are believed to be exceptionally high,
clude transfer rights in their donor agreements, they should involve external consultation.
including digital transfer; this will help archives • Perhaps most important, the community needs
deal with increasingly digital acquisitions. to weigh preservation needs against access man-
• Another crucial issue is the loss of senior archi- dates. Sometimes materials need to be stabilized
vists. Sometimes the senior archivist’s knowledge before they can be digitized to make an access
of the materials is so thorough that he or she serves copy, but it should not always be assumed that
as a walking catalog. The knowledge acquired this is the case. If archives do not make more ma-
about a collection through working with the ma- terials accessible, they may lose the funding that
terials for years or decades is hard to replace. Fur- allows them to preserve their collections at all.
XV.  Observations 19

Emerging points Preservation and access


Although the point of the survey was to assess the In transferring analog materials to digital form,
state of motion archives, following are some encour- archivists must not only invest labor and financial
aging developments in the field: commitment, but they must also be concerned with
• The Columbia University Libraries have engaged the ever-changing digital technology and formats
in a project to create a tool for archives and other that are constantly being replaced by better ones.
repositories to help them prioritize the collections Just as analog materials must be transferred to
most in need of preservation. The archivist enters newer, more stable formats, digital collections face
information into the system and the program gen- a similar trajectory. In his article “Building the
erates a preservation priority code. Although this Archives of the Future,” Kenneth Thibodeau2 writes:
will take significant time for archivists, especially
those at large archives, it can be a valuable tool for Any system, conceived as a final solution,
archivists who need help assessing materials in even if it solved all of the known and know-
need of attention and repair. able problems of obsolescence and fragile
• Re/new Media, headquartered in New York City, media, would itself inevitably become obso-
has launched a new initiative called the Re/frame lete in what, from an archival perspective,
Project, which aims to offer, on demand through would be a relatively short time. Further-
Amazon’s Unbox, materials and collections of in- more, probably the only valid prediction
dependent filmmakers, archives, and other reposi- about the future of information technology
tories. Re/frame will digitize video collections is that it will continue to change. Therefore,
for free (film is digitized at cost) and make them the solution to the challenge of digital pres-
available via DVD-on-demand, download to own, ervation must incorporate the capability to
or download to rent. Supported by the John D. accommodate and incorporate changing
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Re/ technology and unforeseeable products
frame Project hopes to digitize 10,000 films and of that technology. … Similarly, we must
videos in their first year and should provide an anticipate that in the future there will be
opportunity for archives without the time, staff, improved options available for ingest, pres-
and resources to digitize their own collections. ervation, and archives management as well
• New programs at the University of California, as access.
Los Angeles, and New York University (NYU)
In light of this, it is important to stress that
provide training for students who will be the next
digitization of materials is not an archival or
professionals in the moving image archive field.
preservation solution—it is sometimes a step in that
As a recent graduate of the NYU program, I can
direction, but it is also a huge step forward in terms
attest that the program provides an unrivaled of providing access to moving image collections.
educational experience. The program offers ac- But as digital formats change, so must our processes
cess to professors, visiting professionals, library for migrating them—and finding the resources
resources, internships, industry contacts, and to do it. Many archivists who participated in the
conferences essential to students’ development in survey stated that they were uneasy about launching
the field. However, no education obtained through digital projects because set digital standards have
classroom instruction, no matter how infused it is not been agreed upon and, even if they were, they
with real-world contacts, can replace what senior may quickly be supplanted.
archivists know about their collections.

2 Thibodeau,
Kenneth. “Building the Archives of the Future,” D-Lib Magazine 7, no. 2
(February 2001). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february01/thibodeau/02thibodeau.html
20 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

XVI. CONCLUSION

P
resenting at the SAA’s 2005 annual meeting collections that perhaps have never been anything
in New Orleans, Richard Pearce-Moses wrote, but digital.
“I believe that the next step requires us to shift The goal of this project was to provide a rep-
our attention from the conceptual to the practical resentative picture of moving image archives, their
and empirical, to pay more attention to what needs condition, and their readiness for digitization proj-
to happen in the trenches. Archivists and records ects and to suggest possible solutions to some of
professionals—as a whole, and not just digital re- these issues. Through my contact with the 70 par-
cords specialists—must respond by becoming as ticipating archives, it became clear that severe issues
comfortable working with digital materials as they threaten to cripple collections and interfere with the
are with paper. In fact, I believe that in the future, mission of preserving moving images and providing
the notion of ‘digital archivist’ will be useless be- access to them.
cause all archivists will be digital archivists.” Admittedly, this is a short essay for a large topic
Archives will no doubt begin to receive collec- and can be interpreted as painting extremely broad
tions of film and video in digital form. The Franklin strokes that have little evidence to ensure success.
D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum However, I firmly believe that the immediate chal-
is vastly different in its holdings profile than is lenge and responsibility is to begin exploring new
the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, and approaches to see if they will get us further toward
we must anticipate the challenges of maintaining our goals of preservation and access.
XVII.  Appendix I: Environmental Scan Questions 21

XVII. APPENDIX I:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN QUESTIONS
1) What types of media formats does your archive 10) What is the most frequently used portion of
contain? (Please include all formats, not just mov- your moving image collection in terms of
ing images.) requests from researchers, students, etc.?

2) What kinds of genres (documentary, fiction, etc.) 11) Do you have an onsite conservator or
are included in your collections? preservationist?

3) How large is your staff? Please include interns 12) If not, who performs preservation or conserva-
and volunteers. tion work on your moving image collections?

4) Do you currently receive funding for your or- 13) What issues hamper access to your moving
ganization? Please include grants, private dona- image collections the most?
tions, fund-raisers, etc.
14) Other access issues?
5) Do you have any new projects in development for
your collections right now? If so, could you de- 15) Do you have media that plays on equipment
scribe? You can also include projects that are still that is obsolete or is in danger of becoming so?
in an incubation stage. If so, please describe.

6) When was your last preservation assessment for 16) Have you ever done a copyright assessment for
your moving image collection? your moving image collections?

7) What is the biggest preservation concern for your 17) How much of your moving image collection
moving image collection? would you feel confident about having clear
and complete copyright information?
8) What is the biggest preservation cost for your
moving image collection? 18) How much of your moving image collec-
tion would you estimate has no copyright
9) Based on your preservation efforts, how would information?
you describe the condition of your moving
image collections? Are some collections in 19) Do you have a disaster management plan?
better condition than others?
22 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

20) Has your organization adopted standards for 27) Does your institution upload catalog records to
digital copies? the Moving Image Collections Union Catalog?

21) If you have digital copies of materials, either 28) How complete are the catalog records for the
for access or preservation purposes, what kinds moving images in your collections? Do you feel
of formats are those in (MPEG-1, MPEG-2, your records have sufficient information regard-
Windows Player, etc.)? ing author/creator, date, title, copyright, names
of performers, etc.?
22) Do members of your organization currently
attend conferences or workshops that deal with 29) Do you accept new moving images into your
the adoption of digital standards? collection if they do not have proper cataloging
information? If this causes issues or concerns for
23) Have you been contacted by a private company your staff, please describe.
or organization related to deals to digitize your
content in order to provide digital distribution, 30) In your estimation, how many individual pieces
such as the agreements Google is making with of moving images do you have? (Please include
archives? just film and video.)

24) Is this something you would be interested in? A) 1–250


If so, what are your main concerns for entering B) 251–500
these types of agreements? C) 501–1,000
D) 1,000+
25) Would there be any issues you consider deal
breakers? For example, giving up control of Please include any additional comments you may
aspects of the collection, not being able to share have in regards to the general scan.
digital copies with other institutions, etc. Please
also list any other comments or concerns you You may also include additional information about
have. your collection you feel is important:

26) What kind of cataloging standards has your


institution adopted for moving images? For
example, MARC, Dublin Core, MPEG-7, SMPTE?
XVIII.  Appendix II: Selected Summary Data 23

XVIII. APPENDIX II:


SELECTED SUMMARY DATA
HOW MANY INDIVIDUAL PIECES HOW LARGE IS YOUR STAFF?
OF FILM AND VIDEO DO YOU HAVE How Many Full-Time Employees
IN YOUR COLLECTIONS? Do You Have?
1–250: 5.7% 1–5: 61.4%

251–500: 10% 6–10: 21.4%

501–1,000: 4.2% 11–15: 4.2%

1,000+: 41.4% 16–20 0%

2,000+: 1.4% 20+: 0%

5,000+: 2.8% 30+: 8.5%

10,000+: 7.1% No Answer: 4.5%

22,000+: 1.4% How Many Part-Time Employees Do


25,000+: 1.4% You Have? (including professionals
45,000+: 1.4% and student workers)
50,000+: 1.4% 1–5: 21%
100,000+: 2.8% 6–10: 7.1%
No Answer: 12.8% 11–15: 1.4%
16–20: 2.8%
20+: 0%
30+: 1.4%

How Many Interns Do You Have?


1–5: 27.1%
6–10: 11.4%
11–15: 1.4%
16–20: 2.8%
20+: 0%
30+: 2.8%
24 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

WHAT KIND OF FUNDING DOES YOUR HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE


INSTITUTION RECEIVE? THE OVERALL CONDITION OF
Grants: 64.2% COLLECTIONS?
Donations: 35.7% Excellent: 8.5%
Foundations: 22.8% Good: 15.7%
Fund-raisers: 8.5% Bad: 2.8%
Endowment: 10% Okay: 7.1%
State Budget: 21.4% Some Collections Are 12.8%
Federal Budget: 15.7% Better than Others:
City Budget: 12.8% Some Better than Others, 21.4%
Video in Danger:
University Budget: 25.7%
Some Better than Others, 20%
Ticket Sales: 1.4%
Film in Danger:
DVD/Tape Sales: 4.2%
Some Better than Others, Electronic/ 2.8%
Admissions: 2.8% Digital Formats in Danger:
Charge for Services: 7.1% Don’t Know: 2.8%
Events: 2.8% No Answer: 5.7%
Retail Sales: 2.8%
Membership: 10%
DO YOU HAVE AN ONSITE
Facility Rental: 2.8%
CONSERVATOR? IF NOT, WHO DOES
Other: 4.2%
THE WORK?
In-House Conservator: 31.7%
Outside Vendor: 34.2%
Contractor/Consultants: 2.8%
No One/Work Doesn’t Get Done: 20%
Done In-House, Different Department: 11.4%
XVIII.  Appendix II: Selected Summary Data 25

WHAT KINDS OF GENRES ARE REPRESENTED IN YOUR COLLECTIONS?


Documentary: 71.4% Personal/family: 20%
News film and video: 35.7% Corporate histories: 4.2%
Sports film and video: 10% Musical performances: 17.1%
Feature films: 20% Dance: 4.2%
Classical music: 1.4% Foreign: 5.7%
Conferences: 4.2% Newsreels: 14.2%
English dept. readings: 1.4% Propaganda: 10%
Commencement: 14.2% Literary adaptations: 1.4%
Lectures: 7.1% Interviews: 14.2%
Student events: 5.7% Speeches: 12.8%
Media in MA theses: 1.4% Commercial and field recordings: 4.2%
Dramatic productions: 4.2% Wildlife/scenic: 7.1%
Biographical features: 14.2% Public meetings: 1.4%
Cartoons: 7.1% Coursework: 2.8%
Travelogues: 8.5% Professional in-service: 1.4%
Museum excavations: 1.4% Health education: 1.4%
Photojournalism: 5.7% Public safety: 2.8%
Oral history: 24.2% Military: 8.5%
Political speeches and campaigns: 10% Medical: 4.2%
Fiction: 20% Movie trailers: 2.8%
Television programs: 20% Ethnographic: 1.4%
Experimental/avant-garde: 12.8% Science/engineering: 5.7%
Animation: 7.1% Children’s education: 7.1%
Home movies: 24.2% Maritime history: 1.4%
Student films: 8.5% Awards: 2.8%
Advertising: 10% Exhibit: 5.7%
Industrials: 15.7% Talk shows: 1.4%
Educational: 25.7% Amateur: 20%
Southwestern films: 1.4% Outtakes: 12.8%
Texas films: 1.4% Marketing: 2.8%
Music: 5.7% Political advertising: 5.7%
Performance: 4.2% School-related: 8.5%
Governmental films: 5.7% Public affairs: 11.4%
Nonfiction: 20% Commercials: 7.1%
Travel: 8.5%
Shorts: 11.4%
Instructional: 11.4%
26 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

WHAT ARE SOME OF YOUR BIGGEST DO YOU ACCEPT MOVING IMAGES


PRESERVATION COSTS? INTO YOUR COLLECTIONS
Storage: 21.4% IF THEY DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE
Supplies: 22.8% CATALOG RECORDS?
Reformatting/Transfers: 22.8% Yes: 60%
Staff: 17.1% No: 1.4%
Digital Projects: 8.5% Yes, if They Fit into the Mission of Our 14.2%
Outsourcing/Outside Vendors: 4.2% Collection:
General Operating Expenses: 1.4% Does Not Apply: 5.7%

Issues Related to Video Formats: 5.7% No Answer: 18.5%

Issues Related to Film Formats: 10%


Data Storage: 4.2% HAVE YOU ADOPTED CATALOGING
Building Costs: 4.2% STANDARDS?
Indexing/Cataloging/Processing 5.7% MARC: 31.4%
Collections: Dublin Core: 15.7%
Restoring/Repairing Damaged 4.2% AACR2: 2.8%
Materials: 2.8%
ARC:
Replacement of Lost/Damaged 1.4%
PB Core: 2.8%
Materials:
IMAP Template: 4.2%
Don’t Know: 4.2%
SMPTE: 1.4%
No Answer: 4.2%
AMIM: 1.4%
Open Video: 1.4%
WHEN WAS YOUR LAST PRESERVATION We Developed Our Own: 20%
ASSESSMENT? We Do Not Currently Catalog Moving 12.8%
Before 1998: 5.7% Images:
1998–2002: 10% Don’t Know: 2.8%
2003–2006: 14.2% No Answer: 20%
2007–2008: 12.8%
Ongoing Process: 28.5%
UPLOAD CATALOG RECORDS TO
Never: 14.2%
MOVING IMAGE COLLECTIONS
Don’t Know: 14.2%
UNION CATALOG?
Yes: 7.1%
DO YOU HAVE COMPLETE CATALOG No: 57.1%
RECORDS FOR YOUR COLLECTIONS? Planning on It: 17.1%
Very Complete: 17.1% No Answer: 18.5%
Very Incomplete: 17.1%
Overall Good: 14.2%
Overall Okay: 15.7%
A Mixed Bag: 14.2%
No Answer: 21.4%
XVIII.  Appendix II: Selected Summary Data 27

WHAT KINDS OF FORMATS ARE REPRESENTED IN YOUR COLLECTIONS?


Film: DVRs: 4.2%
8-mm: 51.4% S-VHS: 20%
16-mm: 74.2% Mini-DV: 24.2%
35-mm: 55.7% Hi-8: 20%
Super 8: 28.5% D-1: 4.2%
28-mm: 8.5% D-2: 12.8%
15/16-mm magnetic film: 5.7% DVCPro: 4.2%
9.5-mm film: 11.4% DV-Master: 2.8%
Filmstrip: 10% Mini-Disc: 2.8%
17.5-mm: 8.5% DV-Cam: 1.4%
35/32-mm (unslit 16-mm): 4.2% ¼-inch: 8.5%
16/8 (slit): 1.4% Betacam SX: 7.1%
A/B rolls: 8.5% D-8: 5.7%
Workprints: 7.14% VHS-C: 5.7%
Sheet film: 7.14% 8-mm: 15.7%
HDCam: 1.4%
Video:
VHS: 78.5% Digital:
DVD: 68.5% 3½-inch floppy disks: 2.8%
Beta SP: 58.5% 5¼-inch floppy disks: 2.8%
U-matic: 54.2% Hard drives: 5.7%
2-inch video: 44.2% Windows Media: 2.8%
Digibeta: 44.2% Real Player: 2.8%
1-inch: 42.8% VX30 (Java): 1.4%
Betacam: 38.5% Digital linear tape data storage: 5.7%
½-inch: 28.5% MPEG: 5.7%
Videodisk: 8.5% WAV: 2.8%
Betamax: 24.2% Various formats: 15.7%
2-inch helical scan: 7.14%
Laserdiscs: 17.1%
DAT: 8.5%
28 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

DO YOU HAVE MEDIA THAT HAVE YOU ADOPTED STANDARDS


PLAY ON OBSOLETE FORMATS? FOR DIGITAL COPIES?
Yes, Video: 35.7% Yes: 37.1%
Yes, Film: 10% No: 44.2%
Yes, Video and Film: 34.2% Considering: 10%
Yes, Not Specific: 7.1% Not Sure: 7.1%
Yes, Computer/Data Formats: 1.4% No Answer: 1.4%
No: 4.2%
Formats Listed:
Not Sure: 2.8%
Windows Media: 4.2%
No Answer: 4.2%
Real Player: 2.8%
MPEG-2: 10%
ARE YOU CONFIDENT WITH THE MPEG-4: 4.2%
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION YOU QuickTime: 7.1%
HAVE FOR YOUR COLLECTIONS? Flash: 4.2%
5–10% Clear: 10%
AVI: 5.7%
10–25% Clear: 14.2%
MOV: 4.2%
25–50% Clear: 7.1%
50–75% Clear: 5.7%
41.4%
ATTEND CONFERENCE OR
75–100% Clear:
WORKSHOPS THAT DEAL
No % Known, but We Have a 14.2%
Good Grasp: WITH DIGITAL STANDARDS?
Not Sure: 2.8% Yes: 80%

No Answer: 4.2% No: 15.7%


Don’t Know: 1.4%
No Answer: 2.8%

Organizations Named:
AMIA: 12.8%
Local Workshops: 4.2%
APTS: 1.4%
ARSC: 1.4%
NARAS: 1.4%
SAA: 1.4%
Don’t Know: 1.4%
XIX.  Appendix III: Survey Comments 29

XIX. APPENDIX III:


SURVEY COMMENTS
WHAT IS THE OVERALL • “Paper collections are very stable and easy to

CONDITION OF YOUR maintain. We’re working for quality and consis-


tency with all digital collections and our progress
COLLECTIONS? is too early to have success be determined. I’m
• “Good overall; archival originals and masters are also concerned about how to keep preservation
stored off-site in pristine conditions.” needs for digital collections in the institutional
• “The paper records of the library are, for the most memory if there is staff turnover or after several
part, in quite good condition. Electronic media years have passed.”
(floppies, hard drives, e-mail, etc.) are at great risk. • “Improved vastly in recent years b/c of increased
Film, video and audiotapes are also at risk, which expenditure for conservation; also implemented
is why we are embarking on a project to digitize program 3 years ago to host summer conservation
priority items over the next three years using in- intern which has allowed us to begin addressing
terest from endowment funds.” some specific needs.”
• “We have only recently found funding sources to • “Overall it is in good shape. Of course some col-
initiate preservation projects with our audiovisual lections are in better shape than others, and this
holdings. These collections need a great deal of depends on how they were stored before they
attention, from basic inventories and immediate came to us. Also we have some collections that
storage enclosures to preservation reformatting/ have been heavily used by the university in the
digitization as well as description (cataloging/ past, and these show more wear.”
metadata), finding aids, and long-term manage- • “We range from NARA standard preservation to
ment and accessibility of the digital surrogates.” stuff thrown in a shoe box. We have an enormous
• “The main television news film collection is in back-log and very little staff.”
fairly good condition. It isn’t all out of the old • “Varies greatly, some very bad. Film is slowly de-
metal film cans, but most of it is. We maintain teriorating. VHS is poor.”
the temperature and humidity in the vault where • “Everything in the vault is in good condition; un-
the film is stored. We are making transfers based processed collections run the gamut, but we are
on client request and when grant funds are ac- getting sub-zero vault.”
quired.” • “Vinegar testing of old reel-to-reel film showed
• “Most moving image media in need of archival better condition than expected. Material is housed
housing, storage furniture, and ideally cold stor- in climate control vaults.”
age conditions.”
30 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

WHAT COLLECTIONS DO • “The films by John Marshall, Timothy Asch and


RESEARCHERS USE THE MOST? Robert Gardner.”
• “Industry on Parade; Ernie Smith, Television com-
• “Seattle World’s Fair.” mercials, jazz oral history, various oral history,
• “The archives for the university’s athletic depart- computer history.”
ment are heavily used by television media, print • “Our White House Communications Agency
news media (newspapers, magazines), authors of Videotape Collection, Navy Photographic Center
books, students and others interested in the his- Motion Picture Film Collection and White House
tory of the university’s athletic program. We have Staff Super 8 Motion Picture Film Collection all
one of the largest archives of collegiate athletics in sustain high levels of use.”
the nation.” • “Athletic video.”
• “Audio recordings of William Faulkner when he • “Avant-garde films of the 1960s–70s.”
was in residence.” • “Programs screened in 220-seat theater. These
• “The television news film collection dating from include documentaries, television series, compila-
1958 through 1982 by documentary film produc- tion reels compiled by staff for specific museum
ers. This collection was created by the local NBC programs, others for researchers using reference
affiliate here in Sacramento.” library.”
• “Films about U-Chicago and history, unable to • “Public domain materials; newsreels.”
meet their needs.” • “Alvin dive video.”
• “Movies from the Edmund Muskie Papers.” • “Our student produced materials are continually
• “Civil rights materials and desegregation.” accessed by filmmakers, faculty and staff of the
• “‘The Emerald City’ and community access TV.” school, as well as graduated students and actors.”
• “Past conventions, sermons, addresses.”
• “Documentary videotapes of this area before it
became a center of high-tech industry.”
WHAT ARE SOME OF YOUR
• “The most often requested is news material from BIGGEST ACCESS ISSUES?
WAVE-TV in Louisville, but the most often used • “Past mis-use or mis-handling of objects; most
is the collection of Frontier Nursing Service nurse items are uncataloged; done using interns.”
training videos.” • “Single copies of most titles in the collection;
• “Archival collections that use home movies, viewing is on-site only.”
industrial outtakes, educational collections, TV • “Films on outdated videotape formats; theft.”
news coverage of a 2 year local event that was • “Lack of duplicate copies and facilities to view
pulled for a use in a documentary made by local them; lack of equipment for all these formats.”
PBS.” • “Format obsolescence; the need for expensive
• “Demonstration of scientific principles and his- playback equipment and expertise (even if the
tory of holiday traditions.” format is not yet obsolete). We have some copy-
• “SF media archive: historic films of SF; for Odd- right issues; sometimes it is difficult to get fund-
ball, historic and cultural footage from the 1960’s ing to migrate materials to another format if we
and 70’s.” cannot provide wider (i.e., Web) access to these
• “Videos from the oral history project.” materials.”
• “Material on Auschwitz/concentration camps, • “Lack of funding to purchase updated formats
war crimes trials, Hitler speeches, liberation, pre- (digital) and to replace LPs with CDs, and our
war Jewish life.” VHS with DVDs.”
• “Shipbuilding and fishing materials.” • “Fragility of the original films/videos is one issue.
• “Changes because of museum shows, exhibitions, Lack of sufficient descriptive information about
retrospectives; mainly artists such as Bruce Nau- the films/videos/tapes hampers access by both
man, Matta-Clark, Baldessarri, Joan Jones, Martha researchers and staff.”
Rossler, Nam June Paik.”
XIX.  Appendix III:  Survey Comments 31

• “Searchable databases for the entire collection. • “Extremely incomplete. Frankly, the cataloging of
We do have Microsoft Access databases for some the materials has always taken a back seat to ac-
portions of the collection. These were created by cessioning of backlog collections that do not yet
graduate students doing master’s projects on the have accession records.”
collection. We would like to migrate the old data- • “We have an internal database that provides the
bases into our current system.” basics (if we know them) of title/event; sponsor;
• “Backlog of undescribed materials; reading room type of original format; performer; dates; con-
inadequate, hours are limited.” tents; permission rights (if we have them); length;
• “Lack of intellectual control over the backlog of subject/keywords.”
unprocessed or poorly processed collections, as • “We have minimal records for our moving im-
well as the limited computerization (i.e., the enter- ages. Most are campus produced so we have au-
ing of records in a database) of our photographic thor, date, title, copyright—not necessarily all the
collections.” ‘performers.’”
• “The cost of labor to catalog, transfer and digitize • “About 1/3 have extremely detailed records, in-
physical media. The cost of physical and digital cluding time code log; the other 2/3 have basic
storage; web based tech and IT labor expenses.” information entered from the tape box (date, pro-
• “The inability to roll out our digital archive. We ducer, title, run time); we have not yet watched or
are still trying to process the collections so we are processed these tapes.”
open to the public by appointment only. Also, we • “We have detailed catalog records only for the
need to develop finding aids for each interview.” student materials. We record all of the indicated
information in the record. We only have the other

COMMENTS: HOW COMPLETE material logged mainly by title.”

ARE YOUR CATALOG RECORDS?


• “As there are currently no catalog records, they
DO YOU HAVE NEW PROJECTS
are quite incomplete. However, we do have a sub- IN DEVELOPMENT?
stantial amount of information regarding donor, • “Funding for disaster management.”
author/creator, state, date, etc. Not all films have • “Licensing and digitizing for streaming high-use
associated information.” items in the collection.”
• “Moving image items in our Reference Collections • “New gift of 1,200-inch video, trying to digitize
have full cataloging and we feel that is sufficient. ones that have never been offered for sale.”
Moving image items in our archival collections • “Making oral histories streamable via CONTENT-
are not cataloged and we feel we have insufficient dm, digitizing audio tape originals and creating
information on these items.” metadata for the audio and transcripts, pondering
• “We have a good deal of metadata for them, but digitizing transcription discs.”
it is not in a standard cataloging format. I feel the • “Cataloging major acquisition from a defunct art
metadata we have is sufficient.” video store. Received a large gift of classical and
• “Very incomplete, but this has a lot to do with the jazz CDs.”
fact that until last year our moving image materi- • “Seeking bids for a 3-yr digitization project for
als were often not inventoried at an item level.” film and video.”
• “Not all our motion picture films are properly • “Various digitizing projects, processing and cata-
identified, though we have excellent identifying loging backlog.”
information for portions of it. For most of our • “Raising private funds, writing grant proposals to
films we have at least creator, date, and title.” expand preservation programs to include a pres-
• “Our cataloging records are pretty basic. For ex- ervation lab, audiovisual collections reformatting
ample, they do not include names of performers, lab.”
unless the performer is native to this area.” • “Grants for film preservation, marketing the film
collection to documentary filmmakers.”
32 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

• “Preservation projects with various actors, goal is COMMENTS ON PUBLIC-


to loan and distribute the new preservation prints
to other museums, archives, festivals, etc.”
PRIVATE AGREEMENTS?
• “Digitize our photo collection, migrate AV to CD • “The orphan works issue is actually a bigger is-
and DVD, catalog book holdings, migrate current sue for us than my answers might communicate,
database records to new archival management because making copyright determinations for AV
software, put archival finding aids on website.” materials seems to be so much more complicated
• “Film preservation, cataloging collection in in general. Anytime someone wants to even view
MARC so it is available through the library cata- one of our non-university films we have to go
log, more accessible to public.” through a painful analysis of who owns the copy-
• “Restore video as we received funding, build right and thus who to seek exhibition permission
more archival space, 25th anniversary exhibit.” from. It makes copyright analysis on photographs
• “Making digital copies of moving images with look easy.”
Elmo machine—slow process.” • “The only deal-break would be with copyright
• “Possible digitizing of student newspapers, photo issues. The library board and membership may
collection. Some 16/8mm reformatting this sum- have other ideas.…There are also issues related to
mer but small.” our A/V staff and their willingness to cooperate.”
• “Currently bringing in the Woodsongs collection, • “Who is handling the material? Can we share
a local TV show featuring folk music. All on re- copies? When we generally deal with one transfer
corded formats that cannot be played back.” company, how do we deal with another?”
• “Childhood obesity educational materials, STEM • “The problem with a Bill of Rights for stuff in cur-
educational materials related to Nevada Atomic rent commercial distribution is that commercial
Test site, veteran and Holocaust survivor oral his- contracts will always trump whatever noble inten-
tories, green building in the desert documentary, tions we as providers may have. I’d like to say ‘the
Nevada presidential visits.” right to perpetually retain and migrate licensed
• “Archiving 6,000 TV commercials, integrating a materials,’ but the reality is that the distributor
dozen FilemakerPro databases into one database ultimately calls the shots as far as terms of use.”
and are in the preliminary stages of prioritizing • “Typically we do not want our materials leaving
grant applications for selected film preservation our archive as we are directly responsible for their
projects of historic SF films.” preservation, access and security. Also, if we feel
• “We are looking for a digital down load to own that the preservation concerns would not be met,
service the replicates the distribution arrange- we would not enter into an agreement. And we
ment we had with GOOGLE VIDEO. We are also must retain all custodial rights to the materials we
revamping the infrastructure of our web site, our own outright.”
on-line e-business solutions, etc.” • “The security and proper handling of materials to
• “Digitalization of our campus newspaper.” support their physical preservation needs, and the
• “Planning to weed entire collection and document ability to have long-term storage and ease of mi-
what we decide to keep; currently we have no li- gration for all digital product produced, making it
brary catalog, so we hope to create one.” easily manageable and accessible for staff and pa-
• “Partnership with commercial entertainment trons—but also enable certain content to remain
company. DVD release of material where rights secure or with limited access permissions.”
were donated with source material.” • “The main thing archives need to focus on in the
• “I am currently working with another group on a future is only accepting collections from parties
possible NSF grant to deal with hosting and serv- that can legally give them, not throwing a meta-
ing large data video files.” phorical Goodwill box beside the front door and
• “Betacam to DVD conversion; just about done, 130 let anyone drive up and dump stuff. And even
films will be on DVD; started with public domain, if the parties can give it, make sure agreements
will move to copyrighted.” are in place that gives the archives some if not all
XIX.  Appendix III:  Survey Comments 33

control over the materials. We let patrons dictate archival holdings which is part of our mission.
terms, even in situations where there is no money Without preservation, access is irrelevant.”
attached for the processing or storage of the • “Yes, but mostly have ignored them. The terms of
material.…‘Don’t take in material unless you have the current agreement with the Internet Archive
control over it’ will be a hard policy for many to digitize our motion picture film collection state
places to implement, but they have got to learn.” that the digitization will be done for free as long
• “Yes; contacted by Media Matters for a beta test as we allow the Internet Archive to post the films
but this failed; we do not have a digital repository, to their website.”
no staff also; major issues are control over the con- • “No, but it could be of interest. Main concerns are
tent; protect the material, library may be liable.” having our original materials going out of our
• “No, and of no interest.” hands into an unknown company, and what per-
• “Yes, we are a Google partner. We’re concerned centage of use fees the Society would obtain from
with the care and handling of our materials dur- an outside distribution agreement.”
ing the digitization process and also of restrictive, • “Yes; Google came but they were turned them
or, on the flipside, illegal or unethical use of the down; IT was handling the contract; perhaps in-
digital surrogates.” terested—who would prep the materials because
• “Yes. Our main concern would be to maintain all we don’t have the staff? We could only digitize
preservation integrity of the materials as digitiza- processed collections.”
tion is not worth the risk of damaging the original
34 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

XX. APPENDIX IV:


LIST OF PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS
• Columbia College, Chicago: • University of Pennsylvania Museum
Center for Black Music Research • Southern Baptist Historical Center
• Oregon Historical Society • Washington State Historical Society
• Las Vegas PBS • Hollins University
• SF Media Archive • History San Jose
• University of Toledo, Special Collections • University of Massachusetts, Boston
• Oregon Health and Science University • University of Kentucky
• Houston Public Library • Electronics Arts Intermix
• U.S. Holocaust Museum, SS Archive • Documentary Educational Resources
• Los Angeles Public Library • The HistoryMakers
• Mariners’ Museum • Archives of Appalachia
• Museum of History and Industry • Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and
• National Press Club Library
• The New York Public Library for the • Smith College
Performing Arts: Jerome Robbins Dance Division • Walker Art Center
• UC Berkeley Media Resource • Country Music Hall of Fame
• University of Florida • National Museum of American History,
• University of Louisville Smithsonian Institution
• University of New Mexico • National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian
• Buffalo Bill Historical Center Institution
• University of Michigan • Human Studies Film Archives, Smithsonian
• University of Virginia Institution
• Sacramento Archives • Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation
• Anthology Film Archives • Davidson College
• University of Chicago • KCTS TV
• Louisiana State Archive • Video Data Bank
• Wheaton College • Media Burn
• Southwestern Writers • Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and
• Bates College Museum
• Harvard Film Archive • Guggenheim Museum
• University of Georgia • Oceanographic Society
• Gay and Lesbian Center, New York City • Cleveland Museum of Art
XX.  Appendix IV: List Of Participating Institutions 35

• University of Southern California • Roger Tory Peterson Institute of Natural History


• William J. Clinton Presidential Library (RTPI)
• Appalshop • University of Arizona
• University of Georgia, Peabody • KQED
• New York University, Fales Library • WNET
• Rhode Island Historical Society • New England Ski Museum
• Chicago Public Library • Texas Archive of the Moving Image
36 Environmental Scan of Moving Image Collections in the United States

XXI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Brewer, Michael, and Meghann Matwichuk. California Preservation Program. Preserving the
“Online Survey of Video Collections: Survey 20th Century: California Preservation Survey of Mov-
Results,” Video Round Table: Results of Spring ing Image and Recorded Sound Collections. California
2007 VRT Survey on Video Librarians and Preservation Program, 2007. http://calpreservation.
Video Collections. Chicago: American Library org/management/cppav/av_needs.html
Association, 2007. http://www.ala.org/ala/vrt/ Note although this study led by the California
vrtresources/vrt2007surveys.cfm Preservation Program focused solely on California
Note this survey led by Michael Brewer archives, it is a useful investigation into the vital
(Uni­­versity of Arizona) and Meghann Matwichuk issues involved in moving image archives today.
(University of Delaware) provided an essential
background about many aspects of a variety of
archives, including academic and public libraries.

Geisler, Gary, et al. Open Video Project. Chapel Hill,


North Carolina: Interaction Design Laboratory,
School of Information and Library Science, Uni­
versity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2005.
Note this project led by Gary Geisler, Caryn
Anderson, and Karan Sheldon investigated vari-
ous digital issues among archives. It progressed
to the creation of open-source software that allows
archives and other media repositories to generate
their own online digital archives.
XXII.  Acknowledgments 37

XXII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I SPECIAL THANKS TO:
am indebted to many people regarding the cre-
ation of this work. First and foremost, I would like
to thank Peter Brantley and Barrie Howard from Peter Kaufman for all of his support and trust.
the Digital Library Federation, who entrusted me All my classmates, professors, and colleagues
with this work and provided countless acts of kind- at NYU’s Moving Image Archiving and
ness and support. Preservation Program, Tisch School of
A heartfelt thank-you goes out to Donald J. the Arts.
Waters at The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for his All the members of the Lot 49 group.
support of this work, and for the Mellon Founda-
tion’s continuing support of scholarly communica-
tions in the archival and academic community.
DIGITAL LIBRARY
I would also like to thank all the archivists FEDERATION:
and librarians who dedicated time and effort to The Digital Library Federation (DLF) would
answering the numerous questions in my scan. like to acknowledge the generous assistance
They responded to my e-mail messages, phone calls, of Jaime Moore of DLF and Ricky Erway of
and follow-ups with patience and thoughtfulness, Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) in
and I greatly appreciate all their help. the preparation of this report.
The following individuals met with me and
provided crucial insight to their archives:

Tanisha Jones, The New York Public Library


for the Performing Arts, Jerome Robbins
Dance Division
John Anderson, Electronic Arts Intermix
Janet Gertz, The Columbia University Libraries
Wendy Shay, National Museum of American
History, Smithsonian Institution
Mark Taylor, National Air and Space Museum,
Smithsonian Institution
Pam Wintle, Human Studies Film Archives,
Smithsonian Institution
Rachel Chatalbash, Guggenheim Museum
Nan Rubin, WNET