6th February 2007, 12:33 PM
Not entirely sure either that the 'commercial use' licences we are encouraged to sign are directly concerned with the data held within the archive.
Rather more its to do with the 'value added' to that data as a result of it being archived, the archivists time, the cost of the building/structure in which it is held etc etc. Where public money is involved there is a presumption that 'for profit' uses of a public service, should at least reciprocate some of the costs, in this case, curation.
Its essentially the same argument that suggests developers of sites where archaeology is a factor, should pay for the cost of site monitoring visits by the local authority designated curator. If such charges are legitimate (archive charges, monitoring visit charges, whatever), the archaeologist incurring them should just pass them on to the client (having briefed the client in advance of course that such charges are likely).
Rather more its to do with the 'value added' to that data as a result of it being archived, the archivists time, the cost of the building/structure in which it is held etc etc. Where public money is involved there is a presumption that 'for profit' uses of a public service, should at least reciprocate some of the costs, in this case, curation.
Its essentially the same argument that suggests developers of sites where archaeology is a factor, should pay for the cost of site monitoring visits by the local authority designated curator. If such charges are legitimate (archive charges, monitoring visit charges, whatever), the archaeologist incurring them should just pass them on to the client (having briefed the client in advance of course that such charges are likely).