{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_external_scrutiny_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics","opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__A","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["museum public domain image licensing fees permissions reuse barriers abandoned requests study","museum image licensing fee revenue administrative cost open access study","museum image licensing handbook permission fee scholarly publication barrier survey"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC7","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["museum open access images public domain CC0 no permission fees case study","museum open access pilot images evaluation six month pilot reuse metrics CC0","museum public domain image open access pilot selected images experiment","open access museum collection pilot matched images downloads revenue workload"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC6"],"no_result_note":"No retained source documented the exact proposed combination of a 100-image, six-month, matched-comparison pilot with preregistered harm thresholds and rollback."},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["Simon Tanner reproductions charging models rights policy digital images museums 2004 PDF","Kristin Kelly Images of Works of Art in Museum Collections experience of open access report 2013 PDF","museum image licensing fee revenue administrative cost open access study","image access rights and reproductions museum scholarly publishing fees"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["museum open access images public domain CC0 no permission fees case study","public domain artworks digitisation reuse barriers museum standards Europeana","site:eur-lex.europa.eu Directive EU 2019/790 Article 14 works visual art public domain text","museum open access implementation toolkit rights review workflow public domain images monitoring"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["musées domaine public images frais autorisation réutilisation accès ouvert","gemeinfreie Museumsbilder Gebühren Nachnutzung offene Lizenzen Rechteprüfung","musea publieke domein afbeeldingen hergebruik kosten toestemming CC0","La gestion numérique des droits guide musées licences images domaine public"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC7"],"no_result_note":"French Canadian guidance and bilingual EU law were retained; Dutch, French, and German queries also returned regional open-reuse practices consistent with the retained sources."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["museum CC0 rights clearance workflow donor privacy restrictions impact measurement revenue workload","museum public domain images rights review privacy donor restrictions CC0 monitoring","museum open access revenue workload downloads impact dashboard restrictions","museum rights clearance standardized open terms public domain image reuse"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Reproduction charging models & rights policy for digital images in American art museums: A Mellon Foundation funded study","url":"https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/reproduction-charging-models-amp-rights-policy-for-digital-images/","publisher":"King's College London","date_or_year":"2004","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["A survey of 100 U.S. art museums with 20 in-depth interviews established that museums used structured pricing, licensing, and control practices for digital reproductions.","The study identifies revenue, rights administration, and institutional control as longstanding components of museum image-service policy."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Images of Works of Art in Museum Collections: The Experience of Open Access—A Study of 11 Museums","url":"https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub157/","publisher":"Council on Library and Information Resources","date_or_year":"June 2013","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Eleven U.S. and U.K. museums had already adopted variants of fee-free or open access for public-domain artwork images.","Publishers reported concern about both acquisition costs and permission time; managing exceptions had become onerous at one museum.","Licensing income rarely covered administration, although some museums retained material commercial revenue.","Open-access museums reported increased traffic and interest, but much evidence of downstream reuse remained anecdotal and comparisons were generally not like-for-like.","Reported effects included lower or stable licensing revenue, a 40 percent request/workload increase at one institution, clearer policy, and minimal reported misuse.","Senior leadership support was critical, while rights, technology, finance, curatorial, and conservation staff were identifiable stakeholders."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"The Europeana Public Domain Charter","url":"https://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Publications/Public_Domain_Charter/Public%20Domain%20Charter%20-%20EN.pdf","publisher":"Europeana Foundation","date_or_year":"April 2010","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Europeana states that digitization of public-domain content should not create new rights or contractual restrictions on reuse.","Users had complained that varied provider practices, including charges for downloading or accessing digitized public-domain material, obstructed legitimate access.","The charter recognizes that digitization and maintenance are expensive and that institutions may face funding or income-generation pressures.","Each content provider remains legally responsible for rights clearance and reuse terms."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Directive (EU) 2019/790, Article 14: Works of visual art in the public domain","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-RO/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019L0790","publisher":"European Union, EUR-Lex","date_or_year":"2019","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English and Romanian","claims_supported":["EU member states must provide that non-original reproductions of visual artworks whose protection has expired are not subject to copyright or related rights.","Article 14 narrows one asserted legal basis for restricting faithful reproductions but does not itself resolve contracts, access control, privacy, publicity, donor restrictions, cultural concerns, or original photography."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"The Met Makes Its Images of Public-Domain Artworks Freely Available through New Open Access Policy","url":"https://www.metmuseum.org/ja/press-releases/open-access-2017-news","publisher":"The Metropolitan Museum of Art","date_or_year":"February 7, 2017","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["The Met implemented fee-free, permission-free CC0 reuse for images it believed depicted public-domain artworks.","The program explicitly excluded copyright-controlled or uncertain works, privacy or publicity issues, third-party ownership, artist, donor, or lender restrictions, and files lacking suitable-quality images.","The director and museum administration are identifiable authorizers for such a policy."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"Open Access","url":"https://www.clevelandart.org/open-access","publisher":"Cleveland Museum of Art","date_or_year":"2019–2026","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Cleveland routinely provides high-resolution images of eligible public-domain artworks under CC0 without fees or individualized permission.","Images are excluded where undigitized, copyrighted, otherwise restricted by an artist, donor, or lender, or not fully museum-owned; separate image services retain a processing fee.","The museum updates eligibility annually, distributes machine-readable rights information through an API, refuses bespoke agreements for CC0 files, and operates impact dashboards.","The implementation demonstrates segmentation, standardized terms, self-service delivery, preserved review outside the open path, and ongoing measurement."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"La gestion numérique des droits – Guide à l'intention des musées","url":"https://www.canada.ca/fr/reseau-information-patrimoine/services/propriete-intellectuelle-droit-auteur/guide-gestion-numerique-droits.html","publisher":"Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage Information Network","date_or_year":"2020","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"French","claims_supported":["Official museum guidance describes rights-status clarification and workflows for review and approval.","It reports that cultural institutions generally do not realize meaningful profit from digital-image licensing and that cost recovery, promotion, education, and public service are distinct policy objectives.","The guidance shows that rights and licensing choices are operational museum-management decisions rather than an unidentified external authority's domain."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Digitization and Availability of Artworks in Online Museum Collections","url":"https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4674","publisher":"World Intellectual Property Organization","date_or_year":"2023","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Regression-discontinuity and difference-in-differences analysis found a strong increase in online availability when artworks were perceived to enter the public domain.","Available artworks and surrogates showed substantial downstream reuse, supporting public and commercial value from availability.","The study measures availability rather than the specific effects of museum fees, approval delay, matched open-access pilots, or cultural-sensitivity safeguards."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Museums have historically charged reproduction or licensing fees and imposed mediated permissions on digitized public-domain art. Multiple studies and Europeana complaints identify cost, delay, inconsistent terms, administrative burden, and constrained circulation, while WIPO finds that availability is associated with downstream reuse. The narrower claim that requests are routinely abandoned specifically because of those wedges is plausible but not directly quantified by the retained evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The evidence is strongest for the existence of fees, permission friction, administrative cost, and underavailability. It does not estimate abandonment rates or isolate fee effects from copyright uncertainty, image availability, resolution, interface quality, and user demand at a proposed adopter."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Art museums are identifiable adopters, with directors or other senior leaders authorizing policy and rights, curatorial, legal, finance, technology, and conservation personnel implementing it. The Met and Cleveland provide concrete first-party examples.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"uncertainty":"No particular unopened museum has been identified, so willingness, delegated authority, funding, labor arrangements, and governing-document requirements would still require local confirmation."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The core intervention—rights-screened public-domain images offered free under standardized open terms while restricted material remains on a separate review path—is already operational at collection scale. Cleveland additionally shows machine-readable eligibility, annual updating, separate paid services, and impact monitoring.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"uncertainty":"The sources do not establish the effectiveness of the exact six-month, 100-image, matched-control, threshold-triggered rollback design. They also show possible revenue loss and workload increases, making local measurement necessary."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"The Metropolitan Museum of Art Open Access policy","source_ids":["SRC5"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Fee-free, permission-free standardized CC0 reuse is limited to museum-identified public-domain images, with copyright uncertainty, privacy or publicity, third-party ownership, donor or lender restrictions, and inadequate files excluded.","remaining_difference":"The Met policy is collection-scale rather than a 100-image matched pilot and the retained source does not describe preregistered workload, revenue, complaint, harm, or rollback thresholds."},{"name":"Cleveland Museum of Art Open Access program","source_ids":["SRC6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Cleveland combines self-service CC0 reuse, explicit eligibility segmentation, separate review and fees for non-open files, machine-readable status, recurring updates, and impact dashboards.","remaining_difference":"No matched baseline, six-month sunset, causal estimate of completed legitimate reuse, or predefined file-withdrawal and program-pause rule is documented."},{"name":"Open-access transitions across 11 museums","source_ids":["SRC2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Museums removed or reduced fees and mediated permissions for public-domain imagery, considered revenue, workload, technology, control, and stakeholder effects, and observed operational outcomes.","remaining_difference":"The evidence is observational and heterogeneous; it lacks the proposed bounded matched comparison and formal cultural, privacy, reputational, and rollback thresholds."},{"name":"Europeana Public Domain Charter","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"The charter directly opposes contractual or technical restrictions on digitized public-domain material, while EU Article 14 removes copyright and related-right protection from non-original reproductions of expired visual art.","remaining_difference":"The charter is nonbinding guidance and Article 14 is a legal rule, not a museum pilot; neither supplies the proposed local cost-benefit test, segmentation workflow for all non-copyright interests, or monitoring design."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"No credible novelty claim remains for the segmented fee-free standardized reuse path itself; that package is established practice. A narrower falsifiable research claim remains: at a museum still using request-by-request licensing, a preregistered 100-image matched pilot will increase completed legitimate reuse and reduce applicant or staff handling time enough to exceed fee loss and measured rights, privacy, cultural, reputational, and workload harms.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The incremental claim would be displaced by a prior controlled or matched evaluation using materially the same eligibility screen, open terms, outcomes, six-month boundary, harm thresholds, and rollback rules. It would be empirically falsified if local baseline records show negligible attributable friction, or if the pilot produces no differential legitimate reuse or time saving, or net harms exceed preset thresholds.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"This bounded eight-source search covered direct evidence, older 'rights and reproductions' terminology, institutional programs, standards and law, French/German/Dutch regional terminology, and component combinations. It did not exhaust museum policies worldwide, non-indexed internal pilots, dissertations, conference proceedings, procurement records, or legal variation outside the examined jurisdictions."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Independent studies, official guidance, and Europeana user complaints support the existence of fee, permission, delay, inconsistency, and administrative frictions, though the exact abandonment rate remains unmeasured.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC7","SRC8"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Museum directors or governing senior leadership can authorize policy, with rights, curatorial, legal, finance, technology, and stewardship staff implementing and reviewing it; named institutions have done so.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although the intervention is established practice, the matched, time-bounded causal and incidence claim remains distinct and testable against request completion, handling time, revenue, workload, complaints, and verified harms.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A willing museum can preregister eligibility, select 100 verified images, match baseline images, run for six months, and compare specified outcomes without releasing unresolved material or changing the full collection.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Existing programs demonstrate that copyright uncertainty, privacy or publicity, donor or lender restrictions, incomplete ownership, and unavailable files can remain outside the open path. Local cultural-stewardship review and governing approval remain prerequisites but are compatible with a bounded pilot rather than categorical stops.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially using exactly eight retained direct sources from seven publishers, including three primary research sources, two first-party museum sources, official guidance, and EU law; every retained source was opened.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Treat open reuse as an established intervention and study its local marginal effect. At a willing museum that still uses the stated baseline, obtain director or governing-body approval plus rights, legal, curatorial, cultural-stewardship, privacy, finance, and staff sign-off; audit historical requests; preregister 100 independently verified eligible images and matched baseline images; run six months; measure completed legitimate reuse, applicant and staff time, net revenue, workload, complaints, rights or sensitivity errors, and attributable downstream uses; withdraw affected files immediately and pause at preset thresholds.","world_novelty_boundary":"The search establishes neither world novelty nor absence of additional prior art. It does not determine patentability, freedom to operate, market size, institution-wide feasibility, or realized impact. The evidence indicates that fee-free, standardized, rights-segmented reuse of public-domain museum images is established practice; only the proposed local matched evaluation and its specific safeguards remain a bounded research contribution."}