SPEC Kit 335: Digital Image Collections and Services · 17
digitized collections. Also frequently reported are
blogs, conference presentations, webcasts, videos and
press releases. Specific user groups (students, faculty,
etc.) are targeted by subject librarians and other staff.
Policies and Procedures
The majority of respondents reported that digital im-
ages are not explicitly addressed in a collection devel-
opment policy (48, or 62%). About a quarter report that
digital images are addressed in a general collection
development policy. Seven (9%) report that digital
images are addressed in an electronic resources col-
lection policy. Only six have a separate digital images
policy. As the representative documents reveal, digital
images usually fall under a broader digitization policy.
The majority of libraries who responded to the
survey provide copyright guidelines regarding the
use of digital images (71, or 88%), acknowledging the
importance of managing rights to minimize risk to
the institution and its users, and to protect the rights
of the copyright holder. The library itself typically
implements the guidelines (63, or 93%). About a third
of these share this responsibility with the parent insti-
tution. Four report that the parent institution has sole
responsibility for implementation. A majority of the
responding libraries, however, do not provide privacy
and publicity guidelines with respect to use of digital
images (49, or 61%), highlighting a gap in policies.
There is an increasing use of standards to catalog
and classify images, yet no one standard prevails.
Respondents reported using a wide variety of con-
tent standards to describe digital images, with the
Getty Art &Architecture Thesaurus the most fre-
quent response (52, or 65%). About half use the Library
of Congress Thesaurus for Graphic Materials and
AACR2. About a third use the Getty Union List of
Artist Names, Cataloging Cultural Objects, and/or
DACS. Ten use ICONCLASS. Among the other stan-
dards are the LC subject headings and name authori-
ties file, local guidelines, RDA: Resource Description
and Access, and RAD: Rules for Archival Description.
Only four respondents (5%) indicated that they use no
content standard at all.
The most frequently reported metadata standard
used to describe digital images is Dublin Core (65,
or 83%). Half use the Encoded Archival Description
standard. VRA Core (hosted by the Library of
Congress in partnership with the Visual Resources
Association) is used almost as frequently as EAD
(37, or 46%). MARC and MODS (Metadata Object
Description Schema) are also frequently used.
Only 30 respondents (39%) report that locally
created images are given alt-text for accessibility by
screen readers, revealing a distinct gap in meeting
accessibility standards.
Research and Development Initiatives
The survey asked respondents if their institutions
had any research and development initiatives that
involve the use of digital images. The responses reflect
a wealth of innovative initiatives that span the disci-
plines, moving well beyond the digital humanities to
encompass areas such as anthropology, gastronomy,
engineering, mathematics, and science. Some high-
lights are noted here but the complete set of descrip-
tions in the survey questions &responses section
merit a close reading.
Common themes that emerged indicate that digital
images are increasingly incorporated as an integral
element in eLearning and eTeaching strategies
and modules. Emphasis is on the development of
visualization tools. A noteworthy example is MIT
Media Lab’s Camera Culture which is exploring
new ways to capture and share visual information
(see http://www.media.mit.edu/research/groups/
camera-culture). Immersive image studios employ
images to create 3D immersive experiences. Some
respondents reported plans to use crowd sourcing to
assist in transcription of digitized content while others
described moving into digital moving image and
digital audio realms with their R &D projects. Several
indicated that there were simply too many projects to
report, perhaps reflecting on the ubiquitous nature
of digital image research already underway. One
respondent noted that they have a well-established
and strong grant-based approach to supporting
innovative initiatives using and manipulating images.
Finally, Indiana University’s Image Collections Online
service is also a noteworthy model to visit (see https://
wiki.dlib.indiana.edu/x/rCqBHg) providing as it does
a dual service in supporting both the creation and
publishing of images online.
Previous Page Next Page