Why charge anything at all? The rationale for
charging for copies is usually that a service is being provided - staff time and
materials - or paper, toner and leasing fees in the case of do-it-yourself
copies. As with selling any product or service, a profit is reasonable to
support the mission of the instittion.
However - what is the difference in cost to the
institution between a patron LOOKING at a document, and a patron making a
digital photo? If the ambient light is sufficient to require no flash (and
therefore obviate issues of damage to light-sensitive documents) what is the
rationale to charge anything?
I recently travelled out of town to a
well-known collection to do research. Due to fear of
damaging the heavy folio volumes while photocopying, the library's
policy is no longer to do photocopying. Had I been able to digitally
photograph the records I needed, I would have been finished in an hour, and
could have transcribed them at my leisure at home. Instead,
I hand-copied the text, verbatim, over a period of two 8-hour days with no
breaks. I got the data I needed, but at the expense of an extended trip,
and a severely cramped writing hand! And of course, no-one "charged" me
for copying the pages by hand... so, why charge for copies made with
digital cameras?
David E. Paterson
|