Memorandum submitted by the British Film
Institute
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The BFI welcomes the new inquiry by
the Culture Media and Sport Committee into the care of our collections.
1.2 The BFI submitted evidence to the previous
inquiry on Protecting and Preserving our Heritage (HC 912). This
short paper offers supplementary evidence to address the specific
questions raised in connection with funding, acquisition and disposal
and the remit and effectiveness of DCMS, MLA and other relevant
organisations. It should be read in conjunction with our previous
submission.
1.3 It has been prepared specifically for
the Committee by Amanda Nevill, Director, Heather Stewart, Director
of Cultural Programme and Ruth Kelly, Registrar.
2. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2.1 Care of archive film and video is probably
more expensive than any other cultural artefact. Making it available
is similarly expensive.
2.2 The BFI has streamlined its storage
and conservation, and invested in care, but needs more funding
to effect permanent solutions. Sources such as the HLF and sponsorship
are not appropriate for this core work.
2.3 There are significant opportunities
for increased access using digital technology. This, however,
depends on good storage, conservation and interpretation in the
first instance. The problem of intellectual property rights, which
are normally not held by the Archive, presents a serious obstacle.
2.4 Film archives face unique and difficult
issues surrounding acquisition and disposal, of which rights are
probably the most significant. The problems of rapidly evolving
technology also present conservation difficulties, the prospect
of rising costs and will place an ever-increasing emphasis on
the archive as a centre of knowledge and expertise, as opposed
to the archive as a repository for physical materials.
2.5 The BFI enjoys a good working relationship
with DCMS and MLA. More formal relationships with larger departments
such as DTI and DfES would be welcomed, in recognition of the
value of film archives to creative industries and education.
3. FUNDING
3.1 Care of film collections is extremely
expensive, perhaps more so than any other cultural material. The
media are expensive and unstable, and demand very high quality
storage environments to retard deterioration. In the long term,
film must be copied to preserve it, and further copies must be
made to allow it to be seen. For a simple sound print from a colour
film, this might cost £8,000 for a typical feature around
90 minutes in duration. Specialist conservation work multiplies
this many times over. There are several hundred thousand hours
of material in the BFI National Archive.
3.2 Revenue funding of the BFI National
Archive is currently in the region of £3.7 million per annum,
and this is under pressure owing to increasing costs set against
grant-in-aid that is declining in real terms.
3.3 The National Audit Office inquiry of
April 2[65]68
identified serious shortcomings in the care of the collections,
with a significant proportion of the Nation's heritage actively
at risk—despite application of significant additional funding
from the Heritage Lottery Fund and through generous donations
from the Late Sir John Paul Getty.
3.4 A major strategic review recommended
significant changes in conservation practice, which are now being
implemented. The old strategy of preservation by duplication,
which was found to be unaffordable, has been replaced by preventative
conservation, which controls deterioration through storage in
optimum environmental conditions. Duplication is still required
in the long term, and to make copies available for use, but the
new approach allows greater time for the curatorial processes
of research, selection and interpretation, so that items can be
made available to the widest possible audience, as part of the
BFI's cultural programme.
3.5 The changes enabled a reduction in overheads,
which together with increased fundraising activity has enabled
the BFI to invest additional sums in new storage facilities to
safeguard the collections. The solutions are, however, both partial
and temporary in nature and significant extra funding needs to
be found to effect a permanent solution. This is not an area where
the HLF can help—the funding is required for infrastructure
and core work. HLF funding is required to be additional, and is
tied to access. Nor is the problem attractive to potential sponsors.
3.6 So far as access is concerned, the BFI
stands out, internationally, in the level of access it provides
to its collections through traditional means: research access;
theatrical distribution and loan of prints for film clubs; DVD
release. It is also taking a lead in digital access. Its ground-breaking
Screenonline service reaches users across the UK and will soon
be available in all schools. The BFI National Archive is also
the first public archive in the world to provide a video download
service, for which it has received accolades in the press. To
give a similar level of access to the collection as a whole would
require the investment of an estimated £100 million, excluding
rights clearance.
3.7 In short, funding for both care of the
collections and providing access is woefully inadequate, both
for the BFI National Archive and throughout the entire audio-visual
archive sector.
3.8 In the new digital age, we recognise
the public value and indeed the public expectation that material
will be available online. The opportunities for a truly significant
increase in access, UK-wide are enormous. The task for film archives,
however, is far from straightforward. The problem of rights is
a significant and potentially costly obstruction—we hope
that initiatives such as the creative archive licence can be developed
in such a way that more of our material can be made available.
But the fundamentals of proper storage, conservation and interpretation—without
which material cannot be digitised or interpreted so that it is
meaningful—cannot be overlooked. Funding from all sources
must recognise this.
4. ACQUISITION
AND DISPOSAL
4.1 Compared with other cultural heritage
artefacts, film, video and other moving image material is subject
to a range of unusual features and constraints:
— It is reprographic, and the technical
process of production is complex. This means that the concept
of the "original object" is hard to define, and authentic
copies—and alternative versions or works—proliferate.
The original production materials generally occupy a far higher
volume than the final viewing or distribution materials, and are
inherently hard to access (an original camera negative without
sound is essentially useless to the consumer). Nevertheless, the
production materials are highly prized and often jealously guarded.
— It is prone to the rapid evolution
of technology. This has been especially marked with video, with
new formats appearing, being adopted and then phased out at an
alarming rate. This means that archives are faced with managing
collections of original material that cannot easily be viewed,
or undertaking to migrate the content to new formats at great
expense (and often with some compromise to the quality of the
material).
— It is overtly commercial, and rights
are separated from the physical materials. So although an archive
may hold a copy, or even the original production materials of
a work, it may not (and usually doesn't) hold any rights beyond
individual research access on its own premises. Indeed, the problem
of rights ownership means that most film archives do not collect
material with full title, as museums generally aim to do, but
accept material "on deposit"—a form of long-term
loan, with ownership of both rights and the materials retained
by the depositor. Furthermore, a great deal of significant material
is not deposited at all, but retained by the producer.
— The transition to digital production
and distribution raises two new problems, one practical and one
more philosophical. Practically, there are major conservation
issues surrounding digital film. The technology is expensive and
yet not stable, raising serious questions about the archive's
ability to preserve material in the long term, even presuming
that studios would be prepared to deposit digital production materials
to archives. Philosophically, one can speculate whether it will
be meaningful, in the long term, for archives to hold digital
copies, when it is assumed that they will be universally available.
4.2 Disposal, therefore, is rarely a problem
from the perspective of legal restrictions. Of greater concern
is the requirement to contact owners of the materials and rights
holders before disposal. Because rights frequently change hands,
but rights holders do not notify the BFI of the fact (indeed,
they may not be aware that the BFI holds physical materials),
this can be difficult—so much so that it is cheaper to leave
the material in store.
4.3 In light of all the above, one must
ask whether it is reasonable to preserve large collections of
moving image material, at public expense, when the archive is
so severely restricted in the use of the material.
4.4 The answer is that a great deal of material,
highly valued today, has only survived because archives collected
and preserved what they could. And, as centres of knowledge and
expertise, archives have used their collections to safeguard and
promote a broader and deeper cultural understanding of film and
television, far beyond the narrow view of commercial producers.
Furthermore, by developing and retaining the specialised skills
required in the care of archive moving images, they are frequently
able to assist the commercial sector in keeping our heritage accessible.
4.5 Statutory Deposit, as recommended by
the Kenny Committee in 1999, would offer a partial remedy. It
has, however, been resisted, in particular by major studios, and
the BFI has been locked in negotiation over voluntary deposit
ever since. Note that films funded by the UKFC include the requirement
for deposit as a term in the funding agreement. Whilst this is
better than nothing, and has seen the deposit of copies of a number
of recent British films, it can be hard to enforce.
4.6 BFI collecting policy must take account
of these unique and difficult factors. The current policy, attached
for information, was recently formally reviewed by its Board of
Governors and circulated for international peer review, and came
into force in July 2004. It is scheduled for further review in
2009.
4.7 The policy defines three key criteria
that must be taken into account when considering material for
acquisition: cultural significance to the people of the UK, fitness
for purpose and affordability:
— Cultural significance to the people
of the UK enables us to place a proper emphasis on British production,
but collect international material where it has had a significant
impact or where it reflects the diversity of the UK population.
— Fitness for purpose encapsulates
a number of issues concerning the purpose of collecting, and intended
use. If an item is considered to be adequately preserved elsewhere—at
another archive for example—then we may retain a copy for
reference purposes only. In which case, the technical format needs
to be appropriate for viewing or projection, and we may consider
the item ultimately to be expendable. If, on the other hand, we
are collecting an item and believe it to be unique or not adequately
preserved elsewhere, the technical format needs to be suitable
for preservation and producing new copies, and we place restrictions
on the use of the material for conservation reasons.
— Affordability recognises that there
are significant costs associated with the acquisition process,
long-term storage and access, which must be balanced against cultural
significance and fitness for purpose. Where possible, we negotiate
contributions to costs from depositors, but it should be noted
that the archive is frequently negotiating from a very weak position.
4.8 In addition to the policy an acquisition
review board, chaired by the Director, meets regularly to review
specific decisions and maintain oversight of the process.
5. REMIT AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF
RELEVANT ORGANISATIONS
5.1 The BFI enjoys a good working relationship
with both DCMS and MLA. It must be recognised, however, that film,
television and moving image media in general are of significance
also as key creative industries and from the perspective of media
literacy and education in general.
5.2 The BFI is currently seeking to develop
partnerships within the Higher Education sector. In view of the
need for greater funding, and the public value of archive collections,
we believe that more formal relationships with larger departments
such as DTI and DfES would be potentially beneficial.
65 Improving access to, and education about, the moving
image through the British Film Institute, report by the Comptroller
and auditor General, HC593 Session 2002-2003: 11 April 2003. Back
|
